W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2010

RE: Fwd: First draft of xml-model note

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:10:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30211FD0BF7@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2010 January 12 7:02
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: First draft of xml-model note [was: XML Core WG
> Status and Open Actions as of 2009 December 21]

> In your draft there is note asking why "charset" is not used instead of
> "encoding". I was trying to align xml-model with the latest common use
> which prefers "encoding" -- i.e. XML declaration, encoding attribute in
> XInclude, optional encoding parameter in unparsed-text() XSLT 2.0
> function, ...
> Moroever I don't think that "charset" is more meaningful nowadays when
> content is almost always expected to be in Unicode. So I don't think
> that it makes sense to stick with legacy "charset" term as used in

I'm still not convinced, but I'm not the expert here.

(Francois, John, others?)

I would be more tempted to align xml-model with xml-stylesheet
and http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets and HTTP, etc.


Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 20:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC