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: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:02:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB1741F.A980D763@w3.org>
To: duerst@w3.org
CC: Michel Suignard <michelsu@microsoft.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, www-html-editor@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote:
> Hello Michel - Some background below.
> HTML 4.0 editors: This is a request for a corrigendum to:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/references.html

Martin et al.,

This is just to acknowledge that I have received your request.
I am very behind on HTML 4 errata. Shane McCarron and I expect
to make updates to the list of errata "very soon".

 _ Ian
> 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even with five amendments is way outdated.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.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2001 21:02:14 UTC

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