- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:52:01 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, "public-appformats@w3.org (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Nov 30, 2007, at 13:29, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:14 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> This is really an issue with the "ZIP" specification and deployed
>> soft-
>> ware, not with the "Widgets" specification. It does not seem
>> useful to
>> say anything about this in the Widgets specification beyond saying
>> the
>> archive should be created in accordance with the ZIP specification
>> and
>> that there may be interoperability issues with using non-ASCII names,
>> so those should be avoided, which should be quite normal for authors.
>
> I'm totally ok with doing that... I guess as long as it won't raise
> any issues later because we didn't really provide a solution to the
> problem. Would this be ok with the i18n community? (ie. make it
> Zip/implementer's problem) .
The I18N community is, by definition, pretty much all of us ;-) More
seriously, in general and as a rule of thumb it's a bad idea for one
specification to try an address issues present in another. It's an
almost sure-fire way of creating incompatibilities and animosity down
the line.
The only exception to this rule is of course if you're for instance
the CDF WG or the TAG, in which case you should regularly threaten to
solve other people's issues so that, in awed fear that you might
actually do it, they get to work.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The great thing about asking the wrong question is that you don't
have to care about the answer."
-- Håkon Wium Lie
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 15:52:15 UTC