- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:00:15 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 10:15 24/08/2005, Johannes Koch wrote:
>bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu wrote:
>
>> 8-bit encoding is considered non-text?
>> -> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1596
>
><blockquote>
>"Non-text content: Content that is not represented by a Unicode character
>or sequence of Unicode characters."
>
>This definition could be interpreted as saying that all content on an
>8-bit encoding scheme is considered non-text, which is clearly not the
>intention. Is Unicode so universally used now that all other systems don't
>occur in the real world?
></blockquote>
>
>It can only be misinterpreted, when mixing up encoding (e.g. UTF-8) and
>character set (Unicode). I think, the WG really meant Unicode, right?
Encoding and character set are not mixed up in the definition, but the
confusion of the submitter of the bug reminds me of the discussion we had
on the definition of text (see the clarification for the definition of text
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JulSep/0135.html).
We could redefine non-text content as:
Content that is not represented by a character included in the
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20050630/#unicodedef>Unicode / ISO/IEC
106464 repertoire
or (by) a sequence of characters included in the
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20050630/#unicodedef>Unicode / ISO/IEC
106464 repertoire.
This would make the wording consistent with the definition of text.
Regards,
Christophe Strobbe
>--
>Johannes Koch
>In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
> (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 12:01:25 UTC