- From: Björn Höhrmann <bjoern@hoehrmann.de>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 06:33:04 +0900
- To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
- Cc: bjoern@hoehrmann.de (Björn Höhrmann)
This is a last call comment from Björn Höhrmann (bjoern@hoehrmann.de) on
the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).
Semi-structured version of the comment:
Submitted by: Björn Höhrmann (bjoern@hoehrmann.de)
Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty):
Comment type: other
Chapter/section the comment applies to: 4.4.1 Mandating a unique character encoding
The comment will be visible to: public
Comment title: Strike C019
Comment:
Section 4.4.1, Mandating a unique character encoding
[...]
C018 [S] When a unique character encoding is mandated, the character
encoding MUST be UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32. C019 [S] If a unique
character encoding is mandated and compatibility with US-ASCII is
desired, UTF-8 (see [RFC 3629]) is RECOMMENDED.
[...]
I think C019 should be removed, C018 requires the use of UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32 and among them only UTF-8 is US-ASCII compatible in any meaningful interpretation of "compatible". If you consider it worth mentioning that US-ASCII and UTF-8 are compatible, put that into the normal text.
Structured version of the comment:
<lc-comment
visibility="public" status="pending"
decision="pending" impact="pending" id="LC-">
<originator email="bjoern@hoehrmann.de"
>Björn Höhrmann</originator>
<represents email=""
>-</represents>
<charmod-section href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225/#sec-UniqueEncoding'
>4.4.1</charmod-section>
<title>Strike C019</title>
<description>
<comment>
<dated-link date="2004-04-08"
href="http://www.w3.org/mid/970730591.20040408213304@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp"
>Strike C019</dated-link>
<para>Section 4.4.1, Mandating a unique character encoding
[...]
C018 [S] When a unique character encoding is mandated, the character
encoding MUST be UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32. C019 [S] If a unique
character encoding is mandated and compatibility with US-ASCII is
desired, UTF-8 (see [RFC 3629]) is RECOMMENDED.
[...]
I think C019 should be removed, C018 requires the use of UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32 and among them only UTF-8 is US-ASCII compatible in any meaningful interpretation of "compatible". If you consider it worth mentioning that US-ASCII and UTF-8 are compatible, put that into the normal text.</para>
</comment>
</description>
</lc-comment>
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 17:33:06 UTC