Re: Encoding Standard (mostly complete)

[Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:58:57 +0200, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> Again, I'm not sure whether it is within the authority or responsibility
> of WHATWG or any individual to provide a "better" definition of a
> Unicode encoding form than that provided by Unicode. I do understand the
> desire to nail down the various legacy encodings, such as Shift-JIS,
> that have been interpreted over the years in very flexible and confusing
> ways. I don't think UTF-8 falls into this category at all.

I think having a single specification to address all encoding questions is  
useful. It presents encoding algorithms in a consistent style and gives  
other specifications an simple reference.


The Unicode standard

* Does not address labels (e.g. I cannot find "utf8" in the PDF)
* Deals with byte order mark and utf-16 in a manner that is not matched by  
implementations
* Does not go far enough in defining error handling
* Is a PDF, which is really annoying on the web


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/