W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

[RFC3023Charset-21] TAG position (was: Status of issues/findings I 'own')

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:45:23 +0100
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <424f976c.374010625@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>  Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply? [
>I'm co-editor of the ID that will replace RFC 3023. Some improvements
>have already been made there, and it was recently republished. There is
>still disagreement among the editors about implementing some of the
>charset-related material that the TAG has agreed to. Discussions are
>ongoing. For TAG purposes, this issue is pending on successful
>publication of an RFC to replace RFC 3023 that implements TAG policies
>as given in Webarch.

A good part of the relevant discussions revolved around the implications
of what the TAG agreed to, to the point that it is not actually clear to
me (at least) what the TAG agreed to and draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-01
notes for example that

  Note: Some argue that XML-based media types should not
  introduce the charset parameter, although others disagree.

My understanding is that Chris argues that not introducing the charset
parameter for new +xml types is implied by what the TAG agreed to, while
others argue this is not implied. I thus think it would be helpful if
the TAG could clarify their position, e.g., by proposing changes to the
latest draft.
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 Tuesday, 1 March 2005 16:45:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:45 UTC