Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation

On Sunday 2012-11-25 15:18 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > In accordance with both the W3C process's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement[1], and with the steps identified in the "Plan 2014" CfC[2], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to request transition to CR for the following document:
> > 
> > http://htmlwg.org/cr/html/index.html
[...]
> This specification continues to use terminology and definitions
> that are arbitrarily different from the other specifications of
> Web architecture, resulting in needless argumentation in support
> of willful violations that are really just a failure to use the
> right terms at the right times.
> 
>   URL       --> reference
>   resource  --> representation
>   encoding  --> charset (or character encoding scheme)
[...]
> If the WG decides to advance the HTML5 specification to CR
> without fixing these errors and inconsistencies, then please
> consider this a formal objection.

I would (counter-)object to the proposed use of the term "charset"
for a character encoding scheme.  The character set for the Web is
the Universal Character Set (Unicode), and use of the term "charset"
to describe encoding schemes leads to confusion.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/#C020 says:
  # C020  [S]  Specifications SHOULD avoid using the terms
  # 'character set' and 'charset' to refer to a character encoding,
  # except when the latter is used to refer to the MIME charset
  # parameter or its IANA-registered values. The term 'character
  # encoding', or in specific cases the terms 'character encoding
  # form' or 'character encoding scheme', are RECOMMENDED. 

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 00:29:24 UTC