- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:14:08 +0200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- cc: John Middleton <jmiddlet@sedl.org>, www-validator@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
[ Note: CCed all over the place. Watch were you send any replies! ] [ The right place is probably either www-html or www-validator, ] [ depending on who and which issue you're replying to. :-) ] On 29.08.01 at 16:19, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote: >I'm a bit confused. The place you cite does reference [ISO10646], but it >does not contain any syntax examples. The actual syntax is given in >Section 5, http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/charset.html, but this does >not contain the label iso-10646-1 at all. > >Also, the IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets >does not contain iso-10646-1. > >I wonder where you came up with iso-10646-1. It's a common misconception. Character Encoding issues are _hard_ and most people don't understand them. Since the ISO-8859-* series has been well worked into the collective subsconscious, if a spec uses a similar looking string (such as "ISO-10646") anywhere in relation to charset issues, a lot of people will immediately assume it is a charset name in the same vein as the ISO-8859-* encodings. This has cropped up periodically and should probably be mentioned to the HTML WG; a small explanatory note, strategically placed, could avoid a lot of confusion.
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 04:15:27 UTC