W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2010

Re: ISSUE-101: us-ascii-ref - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:30:21 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <73F6E6C8-23EF-4608-BBC6-F8867C53EE82@apple.com>
To: "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>

On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Simpson, Grant Leyton wrote:

> I realize that it's late in the game now that a straw poll has gone out, but is it possible to have a new change proposal that charts a middle path between the ISO option and the ECMA option? Something to the effect of having the reference to the ANSI/ISO spec but providing an option to UA developers of using the ECMA spec due to its better availability (provided, of course, they are actually identical -- I have not compared them myself).

I think it's a bit late to submit new proposals.

Regarding whether the references are identical - I don't believe anyone in the Working has actually looked at a real copy of the ANSI/ISO spec. However, the ECMA spec claims it is also published as ISO/IEC 646, which Wikipedia says is the successor to ANSI X3.4 (ASCII).

Assuming this information is accurate, it would appear that ECMA-6 is the product of joint development with ISO/IEC, and is the version of the ISO spec for ASCII as published by ECMA. I'm not an expert on these topics, and as I said, I have not seen an actual copy of the ISO spec, but I believe that here, as with other standards jointly published by EMCA and ISO, both versions are equivalent normative references.

Regards,
Maciej

> 
> Best,
> Grant Simpson
> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
>> The poll is available here, and it will run through Friday, July 30th:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-101-objection-poll/
>> 
>> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
>> 
>> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and will not be counting votes.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej Stachowiak
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 16:38:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:19 UTC