- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:57:29 +0000
- To: www-international@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27851 --- Comment #6 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> --- (In reply to Anne from comment #4) > Those pages that have Content-Type: text/html;charset=MS932 would actually > be slightly better of as we would know the encoding for certain and would no > longer have to scan for it in the HTML. I think these are only "better" in theory, in practice they're equivalent. Users won't notice any difference whatsoever and the <meta> will probably most often arrive in the same packet as the header, so there's no measurable performance impact either. > Thanks, I guess we should add it. Anyone see any good reason not to do it? 1 broken page doesn't seem particularly convincing to move away from the interop (ignoring Presto) of not supporting the label. It also still seems plausible that there are other pages on the long tail with the opposite expectation. Search for "html charset ms932" on github (171 matches, not analyzed). https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q="html+charset+ms932"&type=Code&ref=searchresults Variants of "html charset X" and number of matches: csshiftjis 2 ms_kanji 0 shift-jis/shift_jis 114,006 sjis 224 windows-31j 2,453 x-sjis 5,486 cp932 20 mscp932 0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 09:57:34 UTC