- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:16:20 -0000
- To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst > Sent: 20 November 2007 06:13 ... > > Ishida explain that this part of charmod is about best practices > > > > it's not should in the normative sense > > Richard, where did you get this from? The character model is > very clear about what SHOULD means. It's used in the IETF > sense, and it means: do it unless you have a good reason not to do it. > > What is true is that the Character Model tends to err on the > side of strictness rather than lazyness in some cases. The > world may not collapse if you happen to occasionally ignore a > SHOULD. But then, that's why it's a SHOULD, not a MUST. I agree with what you say, and I hope that most of the people in the meeting understood the same thing from what I said there. It could be that I expressed it badly, but I looked at the transcript and it became more vague towards the end (where this was said) and I think it misrepresented what I was trying to say. For the record, note that we are talking about C047 http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C047 > I think that on this issue, Bjoern Hoermann once theatened to > create something like a validator that would produce an error > message for each and every 'clear' character encoded as an entity. > > This would of course be very bad usability design. For users, > it would first be much better if this produced a warning, not > an error (after all, it's just a SHOULD), and second, if the > message was aggregated > ("Warning: 200 unnecessary character entities detected, you > may want to change them to actual characters (e.g. ꯍ -> @@)."). > > > > Elika: Maybe you should go through the document and change the > > wording of should sentences that don't match RFC2119 to something > > else > > > > Ishida: Well, we mean it that way for authors. Maybe we need to > > create different classes and explain which > recommendations apply to > > which > > We already have these classes, don't we? That's the [S], [I], > [C] indicators, or not? Of course, if we really got any of > these wrong in Charmod fundamentals, we should fix it, but > first, please check seriously whether there actually is a > problem or not. Yes. I agree. Again, I don't think that what is in the minutes here reflects what I think I said, or at least what I wanted to say. RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/blog/ http://rishida.net/
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 18:13:38 UTC