- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:28:58 -0800
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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