It'll force to restart the parsing and reflow if the initial guess was wrong. Also while it works in practice it's an undecidable problem, you're just lucky the common character encodings work in a way that allows this faggotry to work. Typical WEB design quality. I chuckle when people ask for the "correct" way do to stuff in the HTML-and-friends cesspool. Just test in in the three of four browsers that matter or copy the code from a popular page so it's already tested for you.
>>8
What part did you not understand? The encoding is needed to read the content, and the encoding is specified as part of the content. It's a recipe for disaster.
>>9
Did you mean: the encoding is specified as part of the content, and the encoding is needed to read other parts of the content
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-06 12:38
How can you parse a page if you ignore its encoding? There might be some important Arabic or Chinese mention before the character encoding, so if you must parse the document to attempt to find the character encoding, it is still necessary to parse it again from the start once you know its encoding. It is a colossal waste of CPU cycles, which, at the scale of the web, produces as much carbon as a country like Portugal.
>>23
The browser can do that itself. Or it could just use xattrs.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-06 16:39
The problem was solved by >>14. >>11 is a retard. And whoever uses any other encoding pointed out by >>16 other than UTF-8 deserves to be ASSRAPED OUTRAGEOUSLY.
All UTF variants are by definition a strict superset of all other character sets - in fact, UTF goes as far as ｈａｖｉｎｇ ｍｕｌｔｉｐｌｅ ｒｅｐｒｅｓｅｎｔａｔｉｏｎｓ ｆｏｒ ｍａｎｙ ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒｓ．
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-06 19:46
>>28
You‘re thinking of the Universal Character Set, not UTF-*.
>>27
There is no point to SJIS where UTF-8 can be used.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-07 7:32
>>33
There's no point to Japanese where English can be used either.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-07 8:37
>>34
True, but that's not the point. You don't need SJIS to render nip characters. I don't know why they insist on using SJIS. Maybe because they want to feel unique? Who knows.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-07 9:46
>>35
It's actually the other way around. The world -should- be using SJIS for everything. If you're alphabet can't be found in SJIS, then perhaps your from a country which, tbqh, doesn't really matter much.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-07 10:37
>>36
SJIS is PIG DISGUSTING Microsoft proprietary encoding. Please to use free and technology above EUC-JP.
>>36
SJIS fails to encode seven of the world's eight most widely spoken languages.
>>38
Actually the world is encoded in UTF-16LE and arguably transmitted in a mix of UTF-8 and local "whatever Windows 9x shipped with" encodings. When your toy OS reaches 85% market share we'll talk.