Re: shift_jis / windows-31J

[Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>]

At this point I don't think it's interesting to say "don't use the name shift_jis". It would be much more productive to switch to utf-8 than to migrate all the uses of the name


- Shawn

Sent from my Windows Phone

On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:05 PM, "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

>> 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
>