W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: I18N-ISSUE-246: Clarify character encoding behavior when calculating storage size [ITS-20]

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:06:15 +0100
Message-ID: <51276D47.3000303@w3.org>
To: Stephan Walter <stephan.walter@cocomore.com>
CC: "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Stephan, all,

just a process aspect: ideally we involve both Norbert, the MLW-LT group 
and the i18n WG (= www-international) in the discussion. At the end 
(=before leaving the "last call phase") we have to show the W3C mgmt 
that all above are satisfied with the resolution. So from my experience 
it works best to keep all groups (our group, the commentor, "his" or 
"her" group) in the loop.



Am 22.02.13 11:27, schrieb Stephan Walter:
> Hi,
> since I can see Norbert's point here but on the other hand I'm not 
> really convinced I'd like to involve the group in this discussion once 
> more.
> I find the case somewhat strange because the values to be expected for 
> the encoding attribute depend completely on external factors 
> (encodings in users' databases or CMSs) and are quite unrelated to the 
> data being marked up. This seems to make it a bit hard to delimit a 
> reasonable set of required encodings apart from UTF-8. I also think 
> that it might turn out to be quite a large requirement introduced by 
> just this one data category.
> I think I do agree now that it would be good if an application could 
> rely on a specific behavior of a processor in the error cases 
> mentioned by Norbert. So I had a look to see how we deal with parallel 
> cases. It seems to me that 'Allowed Characters' is actually the only 
> other category where we provide constraints on the tagged data that 
> one would expect to be evaluated automatically on the data itself in a 
> standard way.
> In this case we have regular expressions and (as I understand it) we 
> import the requirements on processing behavior by pointing to the 
> section on Character Classes of XML Schema. So there is no real 
> analogy here, either.
> If we require any specific behaviour in the error cases mentioned in 
> the issue, how detailed would this have to be?
> Best
> Stephan
> ________________________________________
> *Dr. Stephan Walter,* Senior IT-Consultant
> Tel.: +49 69 972 69 2611 Fax: +49 69 972 69 250; E-Mail: 
> stephan.walter@cocomore.com <mailto:stephan.walter@cocomore.com>
> *Cocomore AG,* Gutleutstraße 30, D-60329 Frankfurt
> Internet: http://www.cocomore.de <http://www.cocomore.de/> Facebook: 
> http://www.facebook.com/cocomore Google+: http://plus.cocomore.de 
> <http://plus.cocomore.de/>
> Cocomore ist aktives Mitglied im World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) und 
> im Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW)
> Cocomore is active member of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Vorstand: Dr. Hans-Ulrich von Freyberg (Vors.), Dr. Jens Fricke, Marc 
> Kutschera,Vors. des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Velasco, Sitz: 
> Frankfurt/Main, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, HRB 51114
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 13:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:27 UTC