[whatwg] Internal character encoding declaration
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
Mon Mar 13 06:43:12 PST 2006
On Mar 13, 2006, at 16:12, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Authors are adviced not to use the UTF-32 encoding or legacy
>> encodings. (Note: I think UTF-32 on the Web is harmful and utterly
>> pointless,
>
> I agree about it being pointless, but why is it considered harmful?
Opportunity cost: The time that is spent implementing something
pointless could be better spend doing something else--like
implementing something useful.
Backwards incompatibility: Using UTF-32 instead of UTF-8 makes pages
incompatible with older UAs for no good reason.
Size: UTF-32 takes more bytes to transfer than UTF-8--slow load, bad
user experience.
>> I'd like to have some text in the spec that justifies whining
>> about legacy encodings.
>
> What are your reasons for whining about legacy encodings and what
> would you like the spec to say?
Using a legacy encoding that user agents are not guaranteed to
support introduces incompatibility for no good reason. (I do not
consider laziness or unwillingness to use UTF-8 good reasons.)
Even with well-supported legacy encodings form submission is problem.
The same as incoming policy combined with an encoding that cannot
encode all of Unicode leads to data loss.
I would like the spec to say that if the page has forms, using an
encoding other than UTF-8 is trouble. And even for pages that don't
have forms, using an encoding that is not known to be extremely well
supported introduces incompatibility for no good reason.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list