Re: i18n reviews of DOM 3 Core and Load&Save

Francois Yergeau wrote:
> Johnny Stenback wrote:
> 
>>Francois Yergeau wrote:
>>
>>>LS5) In DOMSerializer, the contents of the encoding 
>>
>>pseudo-attribute of the
>>
>>>XML (or text) declaration is underspecified.  It should be 
>>
>>specified that
>>
>>>this MUST be the actual encoding that is used for output, 
>>
>>whatever the
>>
>>>source that determined that was.
>>
>>Agreed. The spec was clarified to state that when an XML decl 
>>is output, the encoding is always included in the XML decl.
> 
> 
> Looking at the latest internal spec
> (http://www.w3.org/2003/09/WD-DOM-Level-3-LS-20030918/load-save.html#LS-LSSe
> rializer), I see this within the description of the true value of the
> xml-declaration parameter of the config attribute of LSSerializer (phew!
> that's deep!):
> 
> « The version [...] and the output encoding (see LSSerializer.write for
> details on how to find the output encoding) is specified in the serialized
> XML declaration. »
> 
> This is fairly satisfactory, apart from a little grammatical problem
> (s/is/are/) and the following issue:  Charmod section 3.6.2

Fixed.

> (http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/Overview.html#sec-Encodi
> ngIdent) says that "[S]  If the unique encoding approach is not taken,
> specifications SHOULD mandate the use of the IANA charset registry names,
> and in particular the names identified in the registry as 'MIME preferred
> names', to designate character encodings in protocols, data formats and
> APIs."  XML 1.0 (and the upcoming 1.1) also mandate IANA names, or x- for
> private encodings.
> 
> We would appreciate if you could add a little bit of text (or a ref to
> Charmod 3.6.2) to properly mandate IANA encoding names.

Done.

> 
> Regards,
> 


-- 
jst

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 19:44:15 UTC