- From: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:11:26 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: "Johnston, Patrick - Hoboken" <pjohnston@wiley.com>, Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>, W3C Scholarly HTML CG <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
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