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: 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>
Message-ID: <20100616010904655671.8597bb2d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 

|| […] 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 

[2] http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 23:09:42 UTC

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