> On 4 Dec 2015, at 20:54, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > > 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. > Works for me. Ivan > Then we can validate both separately. > > -- > • 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
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2015 09:10:15 UTC