Re: Encoding single-byte tests

Hello Anne,

Many thanks for your analysis. I have cc'ed Jungshik who hopefully can 
give us some info from a Chrome point of view. If you know others with 
Chrome or Safari to help with the issues below, please cc or contact them.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2014/09/02 18:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Richard Ishida <> wrote:
> This data seems to show the following:
> 1. Firefox has a bug in the windows-* encodings:
> (It used to have
> this bug for iso-8859-* encodings too, that was fixed independently
> much longer ago.)
> 2. Internet Explorer frequently uses distinct PUA code points rather
> than U+FFFD.
> 3. For windows-1253 and windows-874 browsers used a strategy that
> deviates from their strategy for other encodings.
> I think only point 3 is worth looking into further, so let's do that.
> For windows-1253 it seems Firefox' problem is only 1. It otherwise
> fully matches Encoding (and therefore will soon by compliant). For
> Internet Explorer it is 2. Chrome and Safari are nearly identical to
> Encoding apart from 0xAA, which they map to U+00AA rather than U+FFFD
> for unclear reasons. They do have the other two U+FFFD code points and
> do not pass the byte through there. Seems like a bug.
> For windows-874 it seems Firefox' problem is 1 again. Internet
> Explorer's problem is 2 again. And for some weird reason Chrome and
> Safari follow Internet Explorer here rather than not emitting PUA code
> points as they do for all other windows-* encodings. That also seems
> like a bug, though if there's a particular reason that would be
> interesting to know.
> Overall, based on these (revised) tests I still don't see a compelling
> reason to change the Encoding Standard.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 10:36:41 UTC