Re: Assume CP1252

On Jan 10, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Sean Burke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Helleu, Pod pals!
> Short version about "Re: Assume CP1252"-- I advise: yes, assume CP1252 where technically you were expecting Latin-1.

Thanks for chiming in, Sean.

> I agree completely, go for it!
> 
> Yes:
> * assume that input is CP1252 in the absence of any encoding being declared
> * assume that input is CP1252 if the declared encoding is Latin-1
> 
> As far as I know, that amicable bait-and-switch (i.e., construing Latin-1 to actually mean the superset CP1252) means in practice that everybody wins, and nobody loses, and DWIM prevails yet again.

Right, I vaguely remember you telling me this before. I forgot about #2 (and the HTML 5 precedent).

> BTW: I think many people would appreciate having "=encoding ansi" tolerated as a synonym for "=encoding win-1252"... because some systems simply call it that-- and I can never remember 1252 vs 1250 vs my own zipcode vs last four digits of my Antarctican passport, etc.

ansi == cp1252??

I think Encode determines aliases.

> Incidentally, you presumably might want to expand the %Latin1Code_to_fallback table in Pod::Escapes.

Paging Neil Bowers.

> Now, there's two issues that may or may not be already seen as separate:
> * assuming that input is CP1252 in the absence of any encoding being declared
> * assuming that input is CP1252 if the declared encoding is Latin-1
> I suggest doing both (like HTML5)-- but at least the first definitely!

+1

> If anyone wants extreme S&M, maybe a throw a note in WARNINGS about "I expected this to be in Latin-1 but it looks like maybe you should probably have a '=encoding win1252' line."
> But that seems a case of pointless and even onerous obtuseness, instead of unproblematic DWIM.  I think.

Meh. I'm thinking, however, of adding a note to the ChangeLog for the next release that this change will be in the following release. I’ve already added a note that support for Perls < 5.5 will be dropped.

> As to possible flaws, I see two that are on the very edge of remote possibility.
> But, for sake of completeness, I'll note:

Pretty obscure!

> I hope this message has helped.
> REESE'S PIECES OUT.

Thanks again!

Best,

David