- From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:13:58 -0800
Henri Sivonen a ?crit : > WF 2.0 says: "Implementations and documents must comply to the W3C > Character Model specification. [CHARMOD]" > > WA 1.0 says no such thing. Is that intentional? I hope not! > Does C003 in Charmod outlaw bdo? Nope. bdo is simply an assertion by the author that the presentation order is not the usual one for the script. The text is still stored, interchanged and processed in logical order. > I guess C034 should be taken to mean that text/html without a charset > parameter or a meta is non-conforming. Right? Correct. Auto-detection and user defaults are just error recovery. > I think C073 shouldn't render a document non-conforming. Disagree. C073 is a SHOULD NOT and it should carry over to HTML conformance stricto sensu (i.e. as per RFC 2119). > Would it be too > annaying to emit a warning? Perhaps one warning per document rather than > per character? No more than one per doc, please! > I think authors wouldn't like warnings on C047 and C048. Perhaps, perhaps not. Some authors want their apps to keep them as close to spec as possible. Authoring tools should certainly abide by C047 and C048 when generating escapes on behalf of the author. > Moreover, I > think it should be concluded that Charmod SHOULD violation don't make an > (X)HTML5 document non-conforming. Correct? Totally incorrect, IMHO. RFC2119 SHOULD's are real conformance requirements that a spec admits can be disobeyed in some cases, given good enough reasons. Absent such good reasons, they are requirements, period. -- Fran?ois Yergeau
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 15:13:58 UTC