- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:44:58 -0800
- To: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Nov 25, 2012, at 4:28 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > 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. Please see RFC6365: "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6365" "charset" does not mean character set. I personally prefer character encoding, but charset is technically more accurate (as defined) because of charsets that do inline swaps of CES. I don't know what the status of charmod is now, post-RFC6365, but I'd be happy with either being used consistently. Just encoding, OTOH, is insufficient to distinguish the multitude of encodings used in and around HTML (pct-encoding, www-url-encoded-form, content-encoding, etc.). ....Roy
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 00:45:18 UTC