<i18n dev> RFR: 8195686: ISO-8859-8-i charset cannot be decoded, should be mapped to ISO-8859-8

[Jason Mehrens]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:40:38 GMT, Naoto Sato <naoto at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Mapping ISO-8859-8-I charset to ISO-8859-8.
>> Below mentioned 2 aliases are added as part of this:-
>> **ISO-8859-8-I**
>> **ISO8859-8-I**
>> 
>> The bug report for the same:- https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8195686
>
> Sorry, but I cannot speak for Jakarta Mail. If they see ISO-8859-8-I encoding important, they may introduce it as a new charset (again it is not an alias to ISO-8859-8)

@naotoj 

>Sorry, but I cannot speak for Jakarta Mail. If they see ISO-8859-8-I encoding important, they may introduce it as a new charset (again it is not an alias to ISO-8859-8)

Understood.  I'll close out those tickets then with alternatives.

>...Considering these, I am still not sure to introduce these new encodings now, also because there has not been any request from the time Bill Shannon worked (circa 2018)

Well that is not exactly true.  The following are all the same ticket from 2018 as a request from JavaMail/JakartaMail:

- https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8195686 (Ticket created by JavaMail user against OpenJDK by @jmiserez)
- https://github.com/jakartaee/mail-api/issues/302 (migrated ticket from JavaMail to JakartaMail)
- https://github.com/javaee/javamail/issues/302  (referenced in JDK-8195686 by @jmiserez)

The OpenJDK ticket JDK-8195686 has not had a proper evaluation since 2018.  However, looks like this PR has that covered and I'm grateful for that.

Then in May of 2024 the following was created:

https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/angus-mail/issues/147 by @davecrighton on the Angus Mail project.  Then in June @psawant19 commented on that ticket and later created this PR in OpenJDK.  So 3 unique users and all related to JavaMail/JakartaMail/Angus Mail on this very topic.

It seems pretty clear that we would have to contribute the new Charset implementation to move this forward.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20690#issuecomment-2354412752