- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:24:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11423 brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #9 from brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> 2011-01-11 00:24:08 UTC --- The IANA character set registry is what the rest of the Internet uses. It's what W3C uses. It's what the XHTML serialization uses (via XML). If you believe it is incomplete, feel free to augment it. It would be satisfactory to me if the HTML specification decided to define it (as long as the specification is sufficiently precise for interoperability and it can be used as the reference for the IANA registry). Choosing to specify behavior in terms of some vendor-specific character set that is undefined actually *harms* interoperability. Since I don't use Windows, how am I to know what byte sequences are valid and what their meanings are in this mystery encoding? It would be totally acceptable for me to simply define windows-949 as UTF-8, since there is no other specification, and since it is otherwise undefined, I hereby define it as such. I think it's a little ridiculous to expect conformance to a vague, wishy-washy notion that's not clearly defined and call that interoperability. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:24:11 UTC