On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote: > > Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer > > versions ... ? > > Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where > quotes should be, and it was easier to change it at the browser level than > the web level. I can't imagine anything that it would break.
I second this. I don't see much harm done by rendering html pages in Windows-1252 (but mislabeled as ISO-8859-1 or even US-ASCII) as intended (that is, as Windows-1252). Well, by adhering to the definition of ISO-8859-1 and rendering chars. outside it (represented NOT in NCR BUT in its Windows-1252 binary representation. If they're in NCR, Mozilla does and should render them no matter what encoding/MIME charset is used in html docs) as '?', Mozilla can try to 'educate' people(web page authors) about what the correct MIME charset name to use for Windows-1252 pages, but before it achieves anything in this direction, people will simply dismiss it as not working as well as its competitors (e.g. MS IE) and stick to them. There are many cases like Windows-1252 vs ISO-8859-1. One such example is X-Windows-949 (perhaps intentionally - to hide the fact that CP949 is a proprietary extension of its own invention rather than a result of abiding by Korean standard - and mistakenly labeled as ks_c_5601-1987 by MS products) vs EUC-KR. Jungshik Shin
