- From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:22:53 -0700
- To: public-i18n-core@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
As requested by the Internationalization Core WG [1], I have reviewed the Web Workers specification draft of 2012-03-13 [2] from an internationalization point of view. I found no internationalization issues in this specification. Here are more detailed notes from the review: - Sections 4.6, Processing model, and 5.1, Importing scripts and libraries, specify that the source code of web workers is decoded from UTF-8, with no allowance for other encodings. This follows our published best practices for choosing character encodings in specifications [3]. - The same sections also specify UTF-8 as the character encoding for non-ASCII characters in the query component of URLs, with no allowance for other encodings. This follows the same best practices. - Throughout the specification, URLs are resolved to absolute URLs as specified by the HTML5 specification [4], and managed as absolute URLs. The URL resolution algorithm in HTML5 converts to an ASCII form, using IDNA ToASCII conversion for the host component and percent-encoding based on UTF-8 for the path and query components (the latter can use other encodings in HTML5, but Web Workers uses UTF-8, as noted above). The algorithm intentionally deviates from the relevant RFCs in a few points. I assume these choices have been carefully evaluated in the context of HTML5; any issues would have to be discussed in that context. It is good that the Web Workers specification reuses the HTML5 model. - I found and reported two editorial issues that are not related to internationalization [5, 6]. Norbert [1] http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/110 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-workers-20120313/ [3] http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs#choosing [4] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/urls.html#resolving-urls [5] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16694 [6] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16695
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 02:23:27 UTC