[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 20542] Adding EOT Font Rendering capability

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20542





------- Comment #27 from contact at nickshanks.com  2008-10-21 01:17 PDT -------
(in reply to comment #26)

> You may not, but many people want to see *all* the web pages encoded in UTF-8
> or UTF-16.

FWIW I encode all my pages in UTF-8 by default, though also offer older
encodings for non-Latin languages, with content negotiation turned on so older
UAs can request something they understand.
I *am* a great proponent of Unicode, and have been actively involved in the
Indian Unicode promotional community for several years. It is the best answer.
I'm just saying it's not the only answer.

> I know legacy-encoded pages will keep being put up for a long time
> to come.

Do you ever envisage a time when they will not. Even 200 years from now, I
think people will still be using pre-Unicode encodings.

> However, do we really want to introduce any 'new legacy encoding'
> ('new' in the sense that they've not been used in any meaningful number of
> sites) into 'the web sphere' ?

There are massive numbers of government documents in India that are ISCII
encoded. Allowing these to be put online without intermediary steps will do
wonders for e-governance in the country. Yes, we browser makers could dictate
terms to the Indian government and force them to re-encode everything, but it's
much easier for us to just support the encodings they are already using. I
don't think your "not on the web at the moment" argument really passes muster.
Sorry.

> > If it is easier to talk sites into using ISCII than it is to get them to use
> > Unicode, then that's great, lets do that.
> 
> I don't think it's any easier to persuade them to switch to ISCII than Unicode.

Unicode is unwieldy, foreign and unfamiliar, ISCII is something they've already
heard of, home-grown, cosy and warm. I do think it will be easier to get people
to use this than Unicode, though it hasn't been something I have pushed for
previously.
There is also lots of ISCII-supporting software available in India, and it is
older (therefore more likely to be installed on infrequently refreshed
computers) than Unicode-compatible software. Without doubt there are large
swathes of regional government that cannot use Unicode because of lack of
modern software.

> Firefox does not support ISCII
> Chrome does not either
> I'd not do that unless it's really necessary.

I think ease-of-transition. Until it was suggested earlier in this thread, I
hadn't though of doing the font-specific encoding conversion inside the browser
itself. This may be a good short term solution, but still hurts other UAs like
search engines etc, and may add another obstacle in the way of getting these
sites to switch over long term. I think it's okay though for minority browsers
that do not implement EOT to do this.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.