W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Proposal to deprecate 'Character encodings' article

From: <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 13:48:24 +0000
To: Jungshik SHIN (신정식) <jshin1987+w3@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56B20528.1090404@w3.org>
hi Jungshik,

i moved your comment to a new issue on github, so that i don't forget to 
come back to it when i have a moment to think it through.


if anyone wants to reply on this thread, please do so on github.


On 25/01/2016 19:38, Jungshik SHIN (신정식) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:56 AM, <ishida@w3.org <mailto:ishida@w3.org>>
> wrote:
>     It may be useful to note, wrt the first, that we advise HTML content
>     authors to check the list in the Encoding spec because it "provides
>     a list that has been tested against actual browser implementations".
>     For Web platform development, this is therefore the most useful list
>     to choose from, since it take into account interoperability in
>     browsers. We do, however, also mention the IANA registry. (See
>     https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-choosing-encodings#nonutf8)
> Richard, the article you pointed to has the following about PUA:
>     The *x-user-defined* encoding is a single-byte encoding whose lower
>     half is ASCII and whose upper half is mapped into the Unicode
>     Private Use Area (PUA). Like the PUA in general, using this encoding
>     on the public Internet is best avoided because it damages
>     interoperability and long-term use.
> What do you think of adding a similar warning about PUA and Shift_JIS
> and GB18030? I'm rather disappointed that GB 18030 2005 still has a lot
> of PUA code points (after converting to Unicode) even though there are
> regular Unicode code points available. See
> https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/issues/22 (and
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28740#c1 : note that my
> comment about remapping in GB 18030:2005 turned out to be incorrect.
> Only one PUA codepoint was remapped to a regular code point between 2000
> and 2005).
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 13:48:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:09 UTC