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

RE: Change Proposal for ISSUE-101 (us-ascii-ref)

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:31:24 -0800
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA97CA6084D11@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
Why does a standard have to be "freely available and linkable" to be acceptable?  That would, by definition, invalidate standards from major bodies such as the ISO.  I wouldn't think that the W3C would choose to avoid reference to such documents such as 8859-1 (ISO Latin 1) and other encoding standards.

Leonard

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Edward O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:16 AM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Cc: HTML WG
Subject: Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-101 (us-ascii-ref)

Hi Julian,

> 2. Negative Effects
>
> None.

I think you've missed at least one negative effect: as far as I can
tell, ANSI.X3-4.1986 isn't freely available and linkable online. At
least, I haven't been able to find a copy that the spec could link to.


-- 
Edward O'Connor

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 00:31:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC