- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:09:04 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke, Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:54:33 +0200: > On 15.06.2010 18:14, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> ... >>> 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? >> ... > > I'm not aware of any besides ECMA/ISONASI, but that doesn't mean > there aren't any. > > The reason a bug was raised is that RFC 1345 is unmaintained, and not > a *definition* of US-ASCII. Just replace the citation with something > that is. Apart from the free, unzipped, online PDF known as ECMA-6, [1] may I suggest the UNICODE document 'C0 Controls and Basic Latin'? [2] The HTML5 paragraph in question only defines what an "ASCII-compatible character encoding" is, and ends with a reference to both UNICODE and ASCII: || […] the same Unicode characters as those bytes in ANSI_X3.4-1968 || (US-ASCII). [RFC1345] Hence, a reference to "the same Unicode characters", should be enough, and it is a maintained specification. Btw, HTML401 doesn't contain a single reference to any ASCII specification - it only refers to ISO10646/UNICODE. [1] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-006.pdf [2] http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 23:09:42 UTC