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

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

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:43:08 -0500
Message-ID: <117656298.20050311224308@w3.org>
To: "Rice, Ed (HP.com)" <ed.rice@hp.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 1:51:17 PM, Ed wrote:

REHc> Chris/Björn,

REHc> I'll review the draft in detail; in general I don't think
REHc> 'presentation' aka 'char set' should be built into the xml content.

the encoding (charset) is not 'presentation' in any way shape or form.
Its the basis for any self describing document which is constructed by
parsing a stream of characters, otherwise you have a stream of bytes not
characters.

Thus, it clearly should be in the content (unless 100% of xml is to be
accessed through http only).

The issue of whether this is the TAGs position was resolved at the MIT
f2f meeting - suggest you check the minutes of that.

REHc> -Ed


REHc> -----Original Message-----
REHc> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
REHc> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
REHc> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:45 AM
REHc> To: Chris Lilley
REHc> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
REHc> Subject: [RFC3023Charset-21] TAG position (was: Status of issues/findings I 'own')


REHc> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>RFC3023Charset-21:
>>  Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply? [
>>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#RFC3023Charset-21
>>
>>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.

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

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

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




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 03:39:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:33 GMT