- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:54:40 -0500
- To: "Johnston, Patrick - Hoboken" <pjohnston@wiley.com>, Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>, W3C Scholarly HTML CG <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
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