- 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