W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11423] Character sets not registered with IANA

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:24:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PcS1x-0005P8-90@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11423

brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |

--- Comment #9 from brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> 2011-01-11 00:24:08 UTC ---
The IANA character set registry is what the rest of the Internet uses.  It's
what W3C uses.  It's what the XHTML serialization uses (via XML).  If you
believe it is incomplete, feel free to augment it.  It would be satisfactory to
me if the HTML specification decided to define it (as long as the specification
is sufficiently precise for interoperability and it can be used as the
reference for the IANA registry).  Choosing to specify behavior in terms of
some vendor-specific character set that is undefined actually *harms*
interoperability.  Since I don't use Windows, how am I to know what byte
sequences are valid and what their meanings are in this mystery encoding?  It
would be totally acceptable for me to simply define windows-949 as UTF-8, since
there is no other specification, and since it is otherwise undefined, I hereby
define it as such.

I think it's a little ridiculous to expect conformance to a vague, wishy-washy
notion that's not clearly defined and call that interoperability.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:24:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:24:13 GMT