W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Encoding: Referring people to a list of labels

From: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:01:16 +1100
Message-ID: <CAGJ7U-U43JG8sfLHe=L65_xPWXUgZQ6-QrR6n9rCJOjJ+ASRYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: www-international@w3.org, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
On 26/01/2014 8:17 AM, "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/25/2014 12:55 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Andrew Cunningham <
lang.support@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Most of the cases of contemporary uses of legacy encodings I know of
>>
>>
>> ​I'm not sure what sense of "most" is meant.
>
>
> I was puzzling as to what that meant as well, until I saw the "I know of"
which allows one to put no interpretation at all on Andrew's statement,
unless utterly familiar with his personal exposure to legacy encodings. :)
>
>>

Sorry I should have clarified.

I was speaking in terms of numbers of encodinds in use,  not in terms
volume of use of each encoding.

But off I speak in terms of encodings of translations Of government
information in community languages for government websites here in my
country,  then it is a more interesting picture.

All the languages that can be represented as legacy encodings supported by
browsers always come as Unicode documents.

While other languages may come as unsupported legacy encodings.

Some languages we have translated into Is guaranteed not to be in Unicode.

One of the underlying reasons that governent departments tend to deploy
translations as PDF files rather than as HTML.

But it also means this come by becomes problematic when searching.

>> If I said "most cases", I'd mean the number of web pages or emails using
that legacy encoding,
>
> That would be useful, but "cases" allows also to refer just to the
different encodings as such, not simply their usage. The rest of his
statement indicates that that might be what he meant.
>
>> perhaps weighted by the number of characters in the page. But the
Chinese encodings (as just one example) are many, many orders of magnitude
higher, for example, than any of the ones you mention. So in what sense do
you mean "most"?
>>
>> FYI, while I don't have recent Google figures, there is
>>
http://googleblog.blogspot.ch/2012/02/unicode-over-60-percent-of-web.htmland
>>  http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/character_encoding/ms/y
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
>
>
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2014 23:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:36 UTC