On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:04 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
I don't believe it's a good strategy to create the confusion that WHATWG is introducing by using the same names for non-standard encodings.
agreed.
Python uses the Unicode Consortium standard encodings or otherwise internationally standardized ones for the stdlib.
If someone wants to use different encodings, it's easily possible to pip install these as necessary.
For the stdlib, I think we should stick to standards and not go for spreading non-standard ones.
So -1 on adding WHATWG encodings to the stdlib.
If the OP is right that it is one of the most widely used encodings in the world, it's kinda hard to call it "non-standard" I think practicality beats purity here -- if the WHATWG encoding(s) are clearly defined, widely used, and the names don't conflict with other standard encodings then it seems like a very good addition to the stdlib. So +1 -- provided that the proposed encoding(s) is "clearly defined, widely used, and the name doesn't conflict with other standard encodings" -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov