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

RE: i18n comments on Polyglot Markup [issue #4]

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:27:02 +0100
To: "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "'Eliot Graff'" <eliotgra@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013d01cb664d$3d00f920$b702eb60$@org>
[forwarding to public-i18n-core, so they are kept in the loop.  Please reply to this email, rather than the previous one.]


> From: Henri Sivonen [mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi]
> Sent: 04 October 2010 12:53
> To: Eliot Graff
> Cc: Richard Ishida; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: i18n comments on Polyglot Markup [issue #4]
> Importance: High
> 
> > In
> > addition, the meta tag may be used in the absence of a BOM as long as
> > it matches the already specified encoding. Note that the W3C
> > Internationalization (i18n) Group recommends to always include a
> > visible encoding declaration in a document, because it helps
> > developers, testers, or translation production managers to check the
> > encoding of a document visually.
> 
> I object to the polyglot markup doc saying that things are permitted when
> HTML5 says they aren't permitted. HTML5 doesn't permit <meta
> charset="UTF-16">. If the i18n group wishes to change that, the procedurally
> proper way is to escalate
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10890 once it has been
> WONTFIXed (and I expect it to be WONTFIXed)--not to try to get the polyglot
> markup doc changed ahead of the spec.
> 
> (Of course, I'd prefer http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10890
> to be WONTFIXed and the i18n group not escalating it.)
> 
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 18:27:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:15 GMT