W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > May 2011

[Bug 11368] Missing Typographic Convention - Switch Construct

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 21:51:59 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QI6Sl-0002kj-KB@jessica.w3.org>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX
         AssignedTo|ian@hixie.ch                |contributor@whatwg.org

--- Comment #7 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-05-05 21:51:58 UTC ---
> As for multiple interpretations, it is obvious to the most naive reader that
> both consequents may apply simultaneously, e.g., both of the following may be
> true:
> * One byte in the range FE to FF
>     -> The whole sequence must be replaced by a single U+FFFD REPLACEMENT
> * One byte in the range 80 to BF not preceded by a byte in the range 80 to FD
>     -> Each byte must be replaced with a U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER.
> In this case, which of the two consequents apply? You may say the first? Why is
> that? Why not the second? Since you have not bothered to explain this syntax,
> either interpretation is valid.

Yes, either is valid. They have exactly the same effect, so it doesn't matter.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: If there are specific places in the spec that are ambiguous, I'm
happy to fix them, but relying on typographic conventions to define normative
behaviour is a non-starter and as such I don't see any value in defining this
particular typographic convention.

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 Thursday, 5 May 2011 21:52:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:49 UTC