W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [HTML5] 2.8 Character encodings

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html-comments@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908262229270.13789@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Minimally the requirement for entries in the table that contain 
> > > character sets for which support is not required.
> > 
> > I don't see why that is a problem. The spec has all manner of 
> > requirements that only apply to user agents that happen to also 
> > implement other requirements first, e.g. anything to do with scripting 
> > only applies to UAs that implement some scripting language.
> 
> The way it is currently phrased makes it confusing.

I'd love to clarify this, if you could be more specific about what is 
confusing.


> > > Related:
> > > 
> > > "User agents must support the preferred MIME name of every character
> > > encoding they support that has a preferred MIME name, and should support
> > > all the IANA-registered aliases. [IANACHARSET]"
> > > 
> > > How is this supposed to work? By updating the client every time a new
> > > alias is registered?
> > 
> > Yes, just like the reference to Unicode requires UAs to implement whatever
> > the latest version of Unicode is.
> 
> Does it? That's a problem as well, at least has a hard conformance rule.

Why? It seems reasonable to require that when a product be released, it 
support the latest standards.


> But anyway, a registry usually changes faster than a standard,

So?


> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > > HTML5 describes how you handle documents intended for previous versions
> > > > as well, so that's not an issue.
> > > Well, except for the things it doesn't describe anymore.
> > 
> > Did I miss something? I thought I'd included everything that UAs were going
> > to support.
> 
> meta/@scheme, head/@profile...

Fixed.


> > > So I agree that the media type registration should remain in a 
> > > stand-alone document, obsoleting RFC 2854, but keeping most the 
> > > historic stuff in it.
> > 
> > This is inconsistent with the W3C/IETF agreement on the matter.
> 
> How so?

Having a stand-alone document is not the same as having the registration 
in the spec. I can't really see how it could be considered consistent.


> > If you want to be told how to interpret legacy content that is 
> > contemporary with HTML4, then HTML5 does a better job than HTML4. ...
> 
> In many cases: yes. But not in all cases.

If it ever does not, file a bug.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 19:46:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:00 GMT