[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shift_jis / windows-31J
I agree with Shawn here. I think what we discussed earlier was that if
there is an encoding label A (that would be Shift_JIS here) that in
common browser usage is actually interpreted as encoding B (that would
be Windows-31J here), then we would make sure that the charset registry
contained an entry for B. The "in a browser context, use B for A" would
then be in the HTML5 spec or somewhere close.
In the current case, we are already have B registered, and Shawn is just
working on getting the relationships cleared up. If there are other
cases where B isn't registered, then I hope Anne can help us getting
these registered.
I think creating a separate registry for HTML5 doesn't make that much
sense, because there are as far as I know only very few cases with
exceptions.
In the long term, maybe introducing the concept of variants (having a
label such as Shift_JIS--windows or so) might help, but from the current
discussion, it doesn't look like there is too much support for that.
Regards, Martin.
On 2010/11/17 3:03, Shawn Steele wrote:
> Problem is that there are 4+ implementations of shift_jis in "common" use, and none of them are likely to change, since it'd break their customers. :(
>
> So I don't see a perfect solution here. HTML5 is fairly clear about browser behavior, but in other environments, I think the best we can do is point to the variants and allow the clients to decide which version they'd like to use.
>
> -Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:58 AM
> To: Shawn Steele
> Cc: NARUSE, Yui; ietf-charsets@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: shift_jis / windows-31J
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:30:26 +0100, Shawn Steele<Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Does the updated version sent Friday work for you?
>>
>> I think completely pointing shift_jis to the windows 932 behavior would
>> maybe break others, but I don't know for sure.
>
> I do not think the way that was phrased will ever give us good
> interoperability or will give a clue to new web browsers what they need to
> implement.
>
> Though maybe to address that a separate registry is needed just for web
> browsers -- as I suggested in the past -- to avoid clashing with others
> who do not wish to update their code to match.
>
>
--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp