- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:06:20 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
On 15.06.2010 20:13, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> ...
> I object to changing the reference to anything that cannot be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of charge by issuing an HTTP GET request. (For avoidance of doubt, I object to referencing a .pdf.zip, too.)
> ...
Henri,
yes, it would be nice if all specs were available that way.
But they aren't. Pretending that something else is the right spec
because it happens to be in the right format doesn't work.
For the record: if somebody wants to define the US-ASCII charset as to
be the same as the Unicode characters 0..127, and the US-ASCII encoding
as a one-to-one mapping from {0..127} to these characters, I'll be more
than happy to support that (be it in the W3C, or in the IETF).
All of this doesn't change the fact that RFC 1345 is not a definition of
US-ASCII.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 23:07:10 UTC