Re: [whatwg] Is EBCDIC support needed for not breaking the Web?

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > Firefox and Opera being able get away with not supporting EBCDIC 
> > flavors suggests that EBCDIC-based encodings cannot be particularly 
> > Web-relevant. Even if saying that browsers MUST NOT support them might 
> > end up being a dead letter, it seems that it would be feasible to say 
> > that browsers SHOULD NOT support them or at least MUST NOT let a 
> > heuristic detector guess EBCDIC (for security reasons).
> Gecko does support UTF-7 and will continue to do so because UTF-7 is 
> still in use as a character set for mail encoding and multi-part MIME 
> documents.

Would it be possible to limit this support to e-mail? Supporting UTF-7 on 
the Web has been the source of security bugs and really doesn't seem 
necessary outside of e-mail.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 09:37:32 UTC