- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:56 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: www International <www-international@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Jungshik SHIN (신정식)" <jshin1987+w3@gmail.com>
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 <ishida@w3.org> wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/encoding/indexes/results-aliases > > This data seems to show the following: > > 1. Firefox has a bug in the windows-* encodings: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1058021 (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