On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:15:06 +0200, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
On the other hand, declaring Windows-1252 as the default encoding is monoculturalism. For example, in Russia, whenever Windows-1252 is chosen, it is definitely a wrong choice. It's never used in Russia because it doesn't contain Cyrillic letters. A default of Windows-1251 or KOI8-R might be reasonable in Russia, though none of them is a 100% safe guess.
This is to say that there shouldn't be any mandated fallback encoding. Whenever a fallback encoding is needed, it should be taken from the user preferences or vendor presets which are likely to reflect the most popular encoding in the area.
-- Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
