Re: Support for XHTML5

On 04/12/2015 13:38 , Johnston, Patrick - Hoboken wrote:
> I am not a big fan of SHOULDs, but I agree we should consider that UTF-8
> perhaps doesn’t cover the breadth of scholarly research, in particular
> in the case of ancient or fictional languages (though Klingon is
> apparently unofficially supported).
> Rather than making it a SHOULD, I would say MUST unless a UTF-8 encoding
> is not openly available. 

There really isn't much difference in RFC2119 between "SHOULD" and "MUST
unless you have a good reason" :)

Reading the feedback on this thread, here is what I propose:

  • The language is itself defined atop the DOM, with no reference to
syntax or encoding.

  • We include a section with considerations for stringent
interoperability and long-term archival that has stricter rules on
syntax and encoding.

Then we can validate both separately.

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

Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 19:55:04 UTC