Re: shift_jis / windows-31J

[Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>]

> 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.

I think this is necessary but not sufficient. All of the charsets that
currently operate under the name "shift_jis" need to have their own
registrations, but once that's done the registration of "shift_jis" itself
needs to be updated to explain the ambiguity. I also think the "shift_jis"
registration should state that due to the abiguities, use of the "shift_jis"
label is not recommended.

> 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.

I don't see how it makes any sense either, but for different reasons - I have
to say I regard these supposed boundaries between different usages as largely
nonexistant. Stuff always leaks. Always.

				Ned