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

Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-101 us-ascii-ref Change Proposal to replace ASCII reference

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:14:13 -0700
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <54BAA596-D8EF-4537-A5F9-3FF0ACDEB75B@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 15.06.2010 17:36, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> On 2010-06-15 13:05, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> We have a change proposal to replace the reference to RFC 1345 to a
>>> reference to an ANSI or ISO spec that defines ASCII, such as
>>> [ANSI.X3-4.1986]:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0084.html
>>> At the present time, we have no counter proposals. Accordingly, the
>>> chairs are issuing a call for consensus at this time. If there are no
>>> objections, we will adopt this change proposal on June 22, 2010.
>> ANSI.X3.4-1986 is apparently nowhere to be found. I even tried searching
>> the ANSI website and their Standards Store for it, and came up with
>> nothing at all. Referencing a specification which, for all intents and
>> purposes, is effectively non-existent and unavailable in any form would
>> not be useful. (It's probably printed and hidden in some archive
>> somewhere, but still out of reach of most people).

Lachlan - are you objecting to the call for consensus? Does your objection stand if we interpret the Change Proposal to allow other alternatives that are publicly available online, such as ECMA-006? <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-006.pdf>

> Nor is citing something that doesn't define it.
> Anyway, for all practical purposes everybody knows what US-ASCII is, so I doubt that it makes any difference whether the referenced document is available on-line or not.
> If you go back to the original thread, several alternative documents were mentioned (see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0103.html>), which would be equally acceptable and available online.

Julian - ECMA-006 was mentioned, are there other options you would consider acceptable?

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 16:14:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC