15332 2011-12-24 15:40:53 +0000 Consider adding a description about some "asymmetric" encodings 2012-10-30 17:13:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG Encoding unspecified All All RESOLVED WONTFIX https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712876 P2 normal Unsorted 17839 1 VYV03354 annevk gphemsley hsivonen ian ishida mike sideshowbarker+encodingspec oldest_to_newest 62011 0 VYV03354 2011-12-24 15:40:53 +0000 IE and Firefox use asymmetric mapping table for some charsets. Mainly ISO charsets use corresponding Windows charsets for decoding while be strict about encoding. IMO it's desirable to employ this approach to keep "willful violation" to IANA registry as low as possible. iso-8859-9, latin5, l5, csISOLatin5, and iso-ir-148 are not aliases of windows-1254. 62030 1 VYV03354 2011-12-26 11:22:11 +0000 See also bug 15340. At least ISO encodings need to be separated from Windows encodings so that conformance checkers can report parse errors. 62035 2 annevk 2011-12-27 12:28:51 +0000 Since these are legacy encodings, is it really worth caring that much about the IANA registry? It seems better to simplify code and lower the barrier to entry for new players. 62036 3 VYV03354 2011-12-27 12:58:15 +0000 I don't think the barrier is so high because browsers can ignore parse errors (that is, it's sufficient to just replace mapping tables). But conformance checkers can not. 62037 4 annevk 2011-12-27 13:04:16 +0000 Right, about conformance checkers. I think they should flag everything that is not UTF-8. I don't really think it's worthwhile for them to flag that your usage of iso-8859-1 is actually windows-1252. Henri, Ian, opinions? 62038 5 mike 2011-12-27 13:33:09 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Right, about conformance checkers. I think they should flag everything that is > not UTF-8. I don't really think it's worthwhile for them to flag that your > usage of iso-8859-1 is actually windows-1252. If you mean requiring conformance checkers to emit warning messages for any document that's not UTF-8, I'm not sure Richard would be too keen on that. 75093 6 ian 2012-10-02 19:34:03 +0000 I think if a document is labeled as ISO-8859-1 but has characters that are going to be interpreted differently than ISO-8859-1 says they should be, that the validator should give an error message. This is what the HTML spec currently requires for HTML docs. 76902 7 annevk 2012-10-22 12:48:15 +0000 1. Per the Encoding Standard there is no difference between iso-8859-1 and windows-1252. I think that is fine, unless there is some compatibility problem with that. 2. I think we should make non-utf-8 usage non-conforming because there are too many traps with URLs, form submission, and other formats that only work well with utf-8. Per that I'm going to mark this WONTFIX.