On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote:
> > Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer
> > versions ... ?
>
> Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where
> quotes should be, and it was easier to change it at the browser level than
> the web level. I can't imagine anything that it would break.
I second this. I don't see much harm done by rendering html pages
in Windows-1252 (but mislabeled as ISO-8859-1 or even US-ASCII) as
intended (that is, as Windows-1252). Well, by adhering to the definition
of ISO-8859-1 and rendering chars. outside it (represented NOT in NCR BUT
in its Windows-1252 binary representation. If they're in NCR, Mozilla does
and should render them no matter what encoding/MIME charset is used in
html docs) as '?', Mozilla can try to 'educate' people(web page authors)
about what the correct MIME charset name to use for Windows-1252 pages,
but before it achieves anything in this direction, people will simply
dismiss it as not working as well as its competitors (e.g. MS IE) and
stick to them.
There are many cases like Windows-1252 vs ISO-8859-1. One such example
is X-Windows-949 (perhaps intentionally - to hide the fact that CP949
is a proprietary extension of its own invention rather than a result of
abiding by Korean standard - and mistakenly labeled as ks_c_5601-1987
by MS products) vs EUC-KR.
Jungshik Shin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 19:11:49 EST