Re: Support for XHTML5

My only further comment on the encoding issue is that I work in and with
scholarly communities that have had trouble getting their glyphs into the
unicode standard. Those are long stories with legit concerns on both sides;
with the true obscurity of long "dead" alphabets being a factor, of course.

  Meaning, "SH SHOULD be UTF-8 and this document assumes that is the case
in its examples and discussion" is a more welcoming approach than MUST.

 -Sebastian

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Yes, please! I don’t really care about HTML syntax vs. XHTML syntax
> compared with the encoding issue…
>
> The use of a mandatory encoding like UTF-8 is a very good requirement for
> having the minimum amount of troubles when processing SH documents –
> a.k.a., handling different encodings is a real nightmare. Brrr…
>
> Have a nice day :-)
>
> S.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
> Tel: +39 051 2094871
> E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it
> Web: http://www.essepuntato.it
> Twitter: essepuntato
>
>