- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:35:37 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Recorded: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-0101> On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > SUMMARY > > RFC 1345 does not define the US-ASCII encoding, it just registers > the name of the encoding. > > RATIONALE > > When referencing US-ASCII, the spec should actually reference a > document that defines US-ASCII. > > RFC 1345 is a non-maintained, historic, informational RFC that's not > really a definition for ASCII. As far as I can tell, there's not a > single RFC that has been published in the last 20 years that uses > RFC 1345 to reference ASCII (I just searched, and couldn't find any). > > Confirmed in a discussion on the ietf hybi mailing list by various > long-term IETF contributors, including Martin Dürst, IETF Charset > Reviewer ([1]). > > DETAILS > > Use a reference to the ANSI or ISO spec that actually defines ASCII, > such as > > [ANSI.X3-4.1986] American National Standards Institute, "Coded > Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for > Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. > > (taken from the relatively recent RFC 5322). > > > IMPACT > > 1. Positive Effects > > The spec actually references what it's supposed to reference. > > 2. Negative Effects > > None. > > 3. Conformance Classes Changes > > None. > > 4. Risks > > None. > > > REFERENCES > > [1] <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg01154.html> >
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 21:36:10 UTC