On 22 May 2008, at 12:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
Do you have input on the EUC-JP issue?
I am now about to finish my analysis of CJK encodings (e-mail
forthcoming), including EUC-JP. This encoding does not seem to be
particularly problematic, however. Are you referring to a specific
problem?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
Note: Similarly, IE apparently handles CS-ISO-2022-JP as distinct
from
ISO-2022-JP. This is something to keep in mind when looking at
multi-byte encodings.
What should we say about this?
The issue seems to be that IE's implementation of ISO-2022-JP is a
large superset of what is actually specified. (This is the case for
several other CJK encodings as well.) See forthcoming e-mail for an
actual description of the extensions.
(TC)VN5712-2 < (TC)VN5712-1
Opera[?] and Firefox seem to have implemented the superset only.
Should we require this mapping?
For reference:
(TC)VN5712-3 < (TC)VN5712-2 = VSCII-2 = ISO IR 180 < (TC)VN5712-1
Only the complete set seems to be implemented (and only in Firefox),
and MIME charset strings referring to one of the subsets do not seem
to work at all, so no mappings are necessary.
--
Øistein E. Andersen
