- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:57:10 -0400
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, www-international@w3.org, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > My reading is that UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE aren't ruled out, just that they > need to be specified with Content-Type. They could be discouraged (like > UTF-32) or banned (like UTF-7), but I don't have much of an opinion on the > matter. As of January, a Google sample of a few billion web pages showed that UTF-8 and ASCII were used to encode almost 70% of the Web. Latin-1 and friends were another 20%, and all other encodings combined were about 13%. UTF-16 and friends are probably less than 1%. See http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S2Hcx0fITQI/AAAAAAAAFmM/ifZX2Wmv40A/s1600-h/unicode.png .
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:58:08 UTC