RE: Encoding Standard (mostly complete)

[Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>]

Shawn Steele <Shawn dot Steele at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> FWIW: It'd be nice if like in section 0 it said "Encodings are scary,
> use UTF-8 because the rest are implemented inconsistently across
> platforms".

Way down in Section 7, a third of the way through the document, it does
say, "New content and formats must exclusively use the utf-8 encoding."
That's a start, although of course there's no way to enforce "new
content."

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Encoding Standard (mostly complete)
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, April 17, 2012 12:31 pm
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, Anne van Kesteren
<annevk@opera.com>, ietf-charsets <ietf-charsets@iana.org>

Shouldn't the W3C be pointing to the charset registry then? Also is this
doc on some sort of standards track?

FWIW: It'd be nice if like in section 0 it said "Encodings are scary,
use UTF-8 because the rest are implemented inconsistently across
platforms".

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug@ewellic.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Shawn Steele; Anne van Kesteren; ietf-charsets
Subject: RE: Encoding Standard (mostly complete)

Shawn Steele <Shawn dot Steele at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> I'm a little confused about what the purpose of the document is?

I assume it was intended to document the encodings deemed permissible in
HTML5, which I guess is supposed to be synonymous with "the web
platform."

I was surprised by some of the choices of "permissible," such as
including ibm864 and ibm866 but none of the other, much more widespread,
legacy OEM code pages. I was also puzzled by the reference to utf-16 and
utf-16be as "legacy" encodings.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell &shy;