Re: Support for XHTML5

Hi Robin,

Just a great proposal. I'm totally fine with it.

Have a nice weekend :-)

S.

> Il giorno 04 dic 2015, alle ore 20:54, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> ha scritto:
> 
>> 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 Saturday, 5 December 2015 10:11:51 UTC