W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Comments on Charmod PR publications

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:48:33 +0100
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org (I18N IG, for archiving only), member-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <42335a1d.266607062@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Martin Duerst wrote:
>It is just the mention of iso-8859-1 that is crucial in this context,
>as it was most often misused. People put up a page in an arbitrary
>8-bit encoding, labeled it as iso-8859-1, and constructed a font that
>made things look right. So using iso-8859-1 was explicitly part of
>the misuse, and trying to avoid mentioning it just obscures the issue.

Maybe you can cite an example web page and a freely available font that
demonstrates the misuse you have in mind? Do you mean that it matters
that the web page is encoded using ISO-8859-1? That would be weird as
HTML/XHTML require that text processing happens essentially independend
of the character encoding. So, as far as I understand the comment in
the current document, it refers to a font that is defined in terms of
ISO-8859-1; maybe you can cite font technology that enables such mis-
use? What I do not understand so far is why a character encoding is of
any significance in this context.

>If you have any ideas of how to express things with mentioning
>iso-8859-1 (and again, not being overly complicated), that would
>be appreciated.

Well, to me the current text does not make any sense, so I can't really
make a suggestion that involves ISO-8859-1. The conformance requirement
now only discusses code points and coded character sets, not character
encodings, so the requirement and the mention of ISO-8859-1 seem quite
orthogonal to each other.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 00:49:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:15 UTC