From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Wed Dec 30 2009 - 08:16:14 CST
"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:
>> This was from a table in Section 9.2.2.1, where browser developers
>> are encouraged to choose a default encoding that is not Unicode 2/3
>> of the time based on "the user's locale."
>
> You need to be careful here. This section deals with the selection of
> the character encoding used to interpret a document when all other
> possibilities are exhausted---including auto-detection of UTF-8 and
> the user's personal preference. If you already know a document is not
> UTF-8, using UTF-8 to interpret it is not that useful.
OK, I did miss something there. But then I wonder why UTF-8 is still
recommended in this table for some languages.
>> More "willful violations" appear in Section 9.2.2.2, in which
>> browsers are required to "misinterpret for compatibility" ISO and
>> national-standard character sets as Windows code pages, even when the
>> author specified the ISO or national character set.
>
> It usually isn't clear what the author meant to specify. The vast
> preponderance of people have no idea what a character encoding is.
True, and again I don't have much of a problem with encouraging or
recommending this sort of behavior, but I do have a problem with
requiring it.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 30 2009 - 08:20:51 CST