"Does anyone know whether charset="unicode" is at all normal these days?"
Without specific reference to the specific character set, you would be surprised at the quantity of material out there encoded in any number of encodings and character sets. It is not productive to cease supporting any charset allowed by the HTML standards, especially as handling most of them is not that expensive. Best regards, Jonathan (Jony) Rosenne -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steffen Daode Nurpmeso Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 7:33 PM To: Tom Gewecke Cc: Unicode Discussion Subject: Re: Odd "Unicode" Charset Tom Gewecke <[email protected]> wrote: |http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1641 | |which I think indicates that utf-16 is the correct interpretation. \ I read this as UTF-16BE: This character set is encoded as sequences of octets, two per 16-bit character, with the most significant octet first. Text with an odd number of octets is ill-formed. Rationale. ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993(E) specifies that when characters in the UCS-2 form are serialized as octets, that the most significant octet appear first. |Does anyone know whether charset="unicode" is at all normal these days? If you ask me -- at the minimum over the wire this is and ever was a terroristic charset. Just my one cent. --:)
