W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > July 2002

Re: fixed-length escapes

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:22:38 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020712161314.0579e048@localhost>
To: cmsmcq@acm.org (C. M. Sperberg-McQueen), www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Hello Michael,

Many tanks for your comment.

ISO 2022 works on a different level than the escape sequences
we are talking about. While it is in theory possible to define
escape sequences of the type you describe below on the level
of a document format or something similar, I haven't really seen
such a case at all.

An example would be:

&#y2345%    would be U+2345
&#y2345$    would be U+12345
&#y2345(    would be U+22345
...
&#y2345!    would be U+D2345
...

The more I think about it, the more I guess it's weird
enough that we don't have to care about it.

Regards,    Martin.

At 11:40 02/07/12 +0900, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

>This is a last call comment from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (cmsmcq@acm.org) on
>the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).
>
>Semi-structured version of the comment:
>
>Submitted by: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (cmsmcq@acm.org)
>Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty):
>Comment type: editorial
>Chapter/section the comment applies to: 3.7 Character Escaping
>The comment will be visible to: public
>Comment title: fixed-length escapes
>Comment:
>In contemplating the rule "[S] Escape syntax SHOULD either require
>explicit end delimiters or mandate a fixed number of characters in
>each character escape" I am uncertain whether you intend to outlaw the
>kinds of escapes defined by section 6.3 of ISO 2022 or not.  ISO 2022
>defines some fixed-length and some variable-length escape sequences,
>in which certain classes of characters are defined as final
>characters.  These final characters might be viewed as explicit end
>delimiters, but they are not solely delimiters.  They are part of the
>escape sequence and cannot be disregarded in establishing the meaning
>of the escape sequence.
>
>I don't think I have a strong preference for making escape sequences
>of this kind legal or illegal here, but I think it probably needs
>to be clearer whether they are legal or not.
>
>In the same rule, "Escape syntaxes where the end is determined by a
>character outside the set of characters admissible in the character
>escape itself SHOULD be avoided" is a good provision, but at first
>glance it seemed to be saying that the terminating semicolon of
>entity and character references (which is "a character outside the
>set of characters admissible in the character escape itself") was
>being deprecated.  I think rephrasing might help, though I have not
>been able to draft a better alternative.
>no admissible
>
>
>Structured version of  the comment:
>
><lc-comment
>   visibility="public" status="pending"
>   decision="pending" impact="editorial">
>   <originator email="cmsmcq@acm.org" represents="-"
>       >C. M. Sperberg-McQueen</originator>
>   <charmod-section 
> href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-Escaping'
>     >3.7</charmod-section>
>   <title>fixed-length escapes</title>
>   <description>
>     <comment>
>       <dated-link date="2002-07-12"
>         >fixed-length escapes</dated-link>
>       <para>In contemplating the rule "[S] Escape syntax SHOULD either 
> require
>explicit end delimiters or mandate a fixed number of characters in
>each character escape" I am uncertain whether you intend to outlaw the
>kinds of escapes defined by section 6.3 of ISO 2022 or not.  ISO 2022
>defines some fixed-length and some variable-length escape sequences,
>in which certain classes of characters are defined as final
>characters.  These final characters might be viewed as explicit end
>delimiters, but they are not solely delimiters.  They are part of the
>escape sequence and cannot be disregarded in establishing the meaning
>of the escape sequence.
>
>I don't think I have a strong preference for making escape sequences
>of this kind legal or illegal here, but I think it probably needs
>to be clearer whether they are legal or not.
>
>In the same rule, "Escape syntaxes where the end is determined by a
>character outside the set of characters admissible in the character
>escape itself SHOULD be avoided" is a good provision, but at first
>glance it seemed to be saying that the terminating semicolon of
>entity and character references (which is "a character outside the
>set of characters admissible in the character escape itself") was
>being deprecated.  I think rephrasing might help, though I have not
>been able to draft a better alternative.
>no admissible</para>
>     </comment>
>   </description>
></lc-comment>
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 23:52:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:32 GMT