W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > March 2004

appropriate mechanism exists... says who?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:40:39 +0900
Cc: connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly)
Message-Id: <325277583.20040318234039@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org

This is a last call comment from Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.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: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): 
Comment type: substantive
Chapter/section the comment applies to: 4.6 Character Escaping
The comment will be visible to: public
Comment title: appropriate mechanism exists... says who?
Comment:
Regarding...

C042   [S]  Specifications MUST NOT invent a new escaping mechanism if an appropriate one already exists.

How is this to be tested/measured/observed? How is existence of
an appropriate mechanism to be determined?

I don't see how making that a conformance clause helps.
At least change it to SHOULD NOT.


Structured version of  the comment:

<lc-comment
  visibility="public" status="pending"
  decision="pending" impact="substantive" id="LC-">
  <originator email="connolly@w3.org"
      >Dan Connolly</originator>
  <represents email=""
      >-</represents>
  <charmod-section href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/#sec-Escaping'
    >4.6</charmod-section>
  <title>appropriate mechanism exists... says who?</title>
  <description>
    <comment>
      <dated-link date="2004-03-18"
         href="http://www.w3.org/mid/325277583.20040318234039@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp"
        >appropriate mechanism exists... says who?</dated-link>
      <para>Regarding...

C042   [S]  Specifications MUST NOT invent a new escaping mechanism if an appropriate one already exists.

How is this to be tested/measured/observed? How is existence of
an appropriate mechanism to be determined?

I don&#x27;t see how making that a conformance clause helps.
At least change it to SHOULD NOT.</para>
    </comment>
  </description>
</lc-comment>
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 18:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:34 GMT