On Jun 4, 2007, at 14:17, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Also, even for those encodings for which a single-byte encoding like Windows-1252 can be a reasonable fallback, it's doesn't seem wise to me to mandate the use of Windows-1252 (or any other fixed encoding) as the fallback. Some software, especially in devices, already exists that only supports one or several encodings, and these are the most important ones in the local market (e.g. Japanese in devices sold in Japan).
I think it is perfectly reasonable to make support for UTF-8 and Windows-1252 part of UA conformance requirements. After all, a piece of software that doesn't support those two really has no business pretending to be a UA for the World Wide Web. Not supporting Windows-1252 based on "local market" arguments is serious walled- gardenism.
UTF-32 as an encoding for interchange, on the other hand, is nothing but an academic time sink for implementors.
I'm going to support UTF-32 when a decoder is available, but I'd like to know what a parser is to do when the decoder isn't available. (By default, you don't get a UTF-32 decoder with the JDK.)
-- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
