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

[Bug 25136] You have dropped support for encoding cp862!!

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:11:43 +0000
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25136-4285-v70D2SbLmy@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25136

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---

--- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
Here is some data which I think warrants that the editor looks at the issue
once more:

(In reply to Anne from comment #7)
> No, it's the result of research. E.g.

Anne, the research you pointed to was a message to www-archive@ and one wiki
page:

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/att-0058/spectable.
> html and http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Web_Encodings

Based on that, the research seems to have some shortcomings:

First, Anne’s message to www-archive@ makes no evaluation of cp862.

Second, the Wiki page has no data on Safari on Chrome, except that they support
an unknown subset of ICU (and, for Safari, TEC). No tests have been performed,
it seems. (Safari can *detect* (via the charset label) many more encodings than
those that are available in its Encoding menu.)

Third, there is no data about today’s situation.

Here is the data I have found:

* Support in IE and Safari is logical order
* Support in Firefox 28 was visual order
* Does was by default visual order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP862

* Safari 7.0.2, OSX 10.9.2: cp862 is supported via the label
                       "dos-862", and may be other labels as well.

* IE 11 (Windows 8.1): Same as Safari.

  NOTE: In IE, cp862 may be selected by detection or manually,
        whereas in  Safari, encoding can be detected but cannot
        be selected manually.

* Firefox 28: Support has been dropped completely.
* Firefox 27: does not seem to support any labels at all, but it 
              is possible to manually select the encoding.
* Firefox older: Did previously detect labels, according to Anne’s
                 wikipage.

* Blink (Chrome/Opera): does not support it at all nowadays.
* Chromium (Chrome): probably support = worked liked Webkit, says
                     Anne’s wikipage
* Legacy Opera: not relevant anymore.


Summary: 

The way I understand how the Encoding spec has chosen its encodings, then CP862
was apparently excluded for the wrong reasons: Support was actually quite
broad, cross browser. 

1) Safari and IE continue to support CP862. Firefox has just recently dropped
support completely. ”New” kid on the block, Blink, does not support it. 
2) Support used to be more or less cross browser, but the encoding spec has,
(probably) due to lack of testing/data about Safari and Chrome, deleted CP862
from itself based on the incorrect assumption that it was already not cross
browser supported.
3) Due to what was in the Encoding spec, Firefox and Blink, in turn, do not
support for Cp862 anymore. (For Firefox, this seems like a given, but I don’t
know when Chrome actually stopped supporting the encoding.)

I wonder what will happen to e.g. old email messages in Thunderbird if support
is dropped, just like that.

Btw, the Safari behavior seems quite advantageous: It allows documents to be
supported, but, the lack of a sub menu item for CP862 in the Encoding menu, in
praxis discourages its use and makes users forget about the encoding, which
seems good.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 04:11:44 UTC

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