W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [html5] r5258 - [e] (0) Some more references to UTF-8.

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:53:34 +0200
To: whatwg@whatwg.org, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: commit-watchers@whatwg.org
Message-ID: <20100810135334898580.a9d4cdb9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
whatwg@whatwg.org, Mon,  9 Aug 2010 18:16:12 -0700 (PDT):
> Author: ianh
> Date: 2010-08-09 18:16:10 -0700 (Mon, 09 Aug 2010)
> New Revision: 5258

>    <p>Authors are encouraged to use UTF-8. Conformance checkers may
> -  advise authors against using legacy encodings.</p>
> +  advise authors against using legacy encodings. <a 
> href=#refsRFC3629>[RFC3629]</a></p>

Could we replace 'legacy encodings' with a clearer wording - or 
eventually define what 'legacy encodings' mean? The current wording 
could give the impression that any encoding other than UTF-8 is a 
legacy encoding. But it is unclear whether that is actually what is 

Specifically, it is not clear from the above whether conformance 
checkers may advice authors against using UTF-16, since UTF-16 
generally isn't associated with 'legacy encoding'.

Another stumbling stone for someone who tries to make sense of the 
current wording, is that UTF-8 is ASCII-compatible and thereby more 
legacy than UTF-16 ... 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:54:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:54:12 GMT