- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
"Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > 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. > > It is there > > http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%20INCITS%204-1986%20(R2007) > > and cheaper then ISO version. But anyway I think it is better to > reference ISO version. I object to changing the reference to anything that cannot be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of charge by issuing an HTTP GET request. (For avoidance of doubt, I object to referencing a .pdf.zip, too.) Here's a counter-Change Proposal: Rationale To put spec readers ahead of theoretical purity, spec references should be followable in a browser without paywalls when feasible. In the case of ASCII, it is feasible. Details The reference for ASCII must not be to a document that cannot be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of charge without a wrapper format (such as zip) by issuing an HTTP GET request. The reference should be to any resource, at the editor's discretion, that describes ASCII and that can be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of charge without a wrapper format (such as zip) by issuing an HTTP GET request. Impact Positive Effects Readers can follow references conveniently. Negative Effects The reference may be perceived to be less Official. Conformance Classes Changes None. Risks The reference being perceived as less Official due to this reason might, in theory, actually has some tangible consequence. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 18:13:42 UTC