Re: Support for XHTML5

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 17:05, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> 

<snip/>

(oops, I should probably say <snip></snip :-)

> 
>> To the extent that the Vernacular site [3] represents a current state
>> of the SH standard, I see that it reads in part:
>> 
>> "The document must be encoded in UTF-8, and transmitted with a media
>> type of text/html. It must feature a DOCTYPE as its preamble."
> 
> Ah, so this is where it's coming from! Yes, I have already thought I
> should drop this requirement.
> 
> People have seemed to get really angry about that. You're the first to
> ask about the XHTML side, but several people have been really worked up
> about text encoding!
> 
> The primary goal of that clause was to make a much stronger promise in
> terms of interoperability and long-term archival than can be achieved
> otherwise. Enabling flexibility in both syntax and encoding when there
> are known interoperability issues with both is IMHO a problem. It's a
> tractable problem today; I'm not sure how tractable something exotic
> like XHTML in ISO-8859-15 will be some hundred years from now.
> 
> But I seem to be the only one worrying about that, so I don't mind
> backing away from it if it means we can make progress on the rest.

No, you are not the only one worrying about that. I think it is perfectly fine to require that an SH would be in Unicode, and probably UTF-8 is the right way to go due to its widespread use. Publications from all places should be easily mixable, e.g., via cut and paste on source level, and I do not want to be worried about different encoding any more.

Ivan

> 
> --
> • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing
> •
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704