Re: [Encoding] false statement

Hi Anne,

What you consider a font hack, other may consider an encoding.
I could discuss the politics of privelege, but that wouldn't get us any

Although, treating iso-8859-1 windows-1252 is also a hack in was similar

So the encoding standard attempts to enshrine some hacks and refuse others.

But lets make this a bit more productive.

Your position is that utf-8 should (or is it must be?) used.

I have no problem with that.

But that position requires the encoding standard to address two important

1) how to handle scripts that are not currently supported in unicode. There
are some. And I am involved in digitisation projects involing such scripts.

And relying on a PUA implementation would also be hack.

2) there is no requirement on browser developers to support all of Unicode.
So either browser developers must be required to ensure that any unicode
string will display and render correctly, or use of utf-8 must be only one
option among others for web developers.

Either tackle the current state of unicode support head on, or improve
support for legacy encodings used by minority languages.

As far,as I can tell you are inclined to do neither.

On 30/06/2014 11:13 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Cunningham
> <> wrote:
> > There is a wider issue of legacy encodings still in use on the web that
> > not covered by this document.
> We discussed this before. Unless I'm mistaken you are referring to
> using fonts as hacks. Those are not encodings as they have nothing to
> do with mapping bytes to scalar values or scalar values to bytes. They
> are a problem, but an orthogonal one.
> --

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 22:25:16 UTC