- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:31:58 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak, Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:30:21 -0700: > > 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, Regarding the ECMA-6 versus (assumed to be unavailable online) ANSI X3.4: I have been informed about the existence of RFC 20, which is a plain text copy of ANSI X3.4: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0020.txt -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:51:51 UTC