Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation

My preference would be to say 'character encoding'.

RI


Richard Ishida
Internationalization Activity Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/

On 26/11/2012 00:44, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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 17:15:32 UTC