W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Rewriting of clause 9 of the XHTML Mod conformance clause (3.5) a nd ISO 10646 reference

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:27:29 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: Michel Suignard <michelsu@microsoft.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, www-html-editor@w3.org
Hello Michel - Some background below.

HTML 4.0 editors: This is a request for a corrigendum to:

At 11:01 01/03/13 -0800, Michel Suignard wrote:

>The second issue is the reference to ISO 10646 part 1 in the Reference
>section (following is a snippet of what I wrote to the HTML WG prior to this
>message). I would like these 2 points to be covered in today I18n teleconf.
>(the document is in
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xhtml-modularization-20010222/ ):
>Just caught a fairly bad issue in the normative references section.
>By no mean should 10646:1-1993 be referenced. It should be 10646:1-2000.
>This needs to be changed to be in sync with XML 1.0 2nd edition. XML 1.0 2nd
>edition got it slightly wrong by referencing normatively the 2 versions of
>10646 as the 2nd edition has normative changes on top of the 1st edition but
>at least it doesn't try to gloss on the 10646 internal process. Furthermore
>some of the wording about not changing code assignment in the context of
>10646:1993 and the Korean characters reassignment is plainly dangerous as in
>fact the 5th amendment did exactly that (I am assuming that the text here
>was trying to protect against any future re-occurence). Finally 10646:1993
>even with five amendments is way outdated. Also a W3C spec has no business
>in creating condition between Unicode and ISO 10646, XML doesn't, I don't
>see why XHTML Mod should.
>Here are the suggested changes in the 10646 entry:
>- change 1993 by 2000.
>- remove the 2 sentences: "This reference therefore includes....equivalent."
> >>

The current wording in XHTML Mod comes straight from HTML 4.01. Older
versions (see http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/references.html)
already mentioned the first five amendments, but the condition for
no changes and no divergence are new in HTML 4.01.

Unfortunately, the text is misleading; it should first say '10646-1993
including the first five amendments' and then talk about future additions.
This wording problem should be fixed as soon as possible; if possible,
moving to -2000 is highly desirable. I hope this can be done to HTML 4.01
is a corrigendum/erratum.

The conditions on non-divergence and on non-change are modeled on similar
conditions in some IETF RFCs. They express the a very strong wish.
I'm sure that as one of they key persons in the ISO/Unicode collaboration,
you very well understand the importance of staying in sync. On the other
hand, because you are directly working on keeping things in sync, you
probably see that much of a need for such a sentence.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 02:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 13 July 2018 08:58:42 UTC