FW: Your comment on the Character Model [C114]

Resend with corrected address.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: 16 January 2004 08:21
To: Norman.Walsh@w3.org
Cc: www-tag@w3.org; www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Subject: Your comment on the Character Model [C114]



Dear Norm,

Many thanks for your comment on the 2nd Last Call version of the Character
Model for the World Wide Web v1.0 [1].  We appreciate the interest you have
taken in this specification.

You can see the comment you submitted at 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByOriginator.html#
C114
(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the end
of the URI.)

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following comment and reply to us within
the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org (copying
w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the decision
taken. 
        C114

Information relating to thi comment is included below.

You can find the latest version of the Character Model at
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/ . 

Best regards,
Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG




DECISIONS REQUIRING A RESPONSE
==============================


*****C114 S P C Norman Walsh
   TAG
   P MD [806]3.6 Specifications SHOULD NOT add rules for
   character encoding beyond what is provided in XML
     * See also the following comments: C068
     * Comment (received 2002-06-04) -- [809]TAG comments on Character
       Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
       We believe that specifications SHOULD NOT add rules for character
       encoding beyond what is provided in XML. They MUST NOT restrict
       character sets beyond what XML allows. In other words, the TAG
       disagrees with the current wording of the recommendation at the
       beginning of section 3.6 that says a specification should mandate
       a unique encoding. We believe a specification must not mandate a
       single encoding to the exclusion of UTF8/16.
       For some machine-to-machine routing protocol, we accept that
       restricting the encoding to UTF8/16 would be acceptable. But for
       specifications designed for editing by humans (such as MathML), we
       believe that this restriction should not be imposed.
     * Decision: Partially accepted.
     * Decision: Clarify our intent (When building on top of a
       pre-existing spec such as XML, this is a good enough reason to
       'escape' the SHOULD).
     * Additional comments: It is unclear whether the comment is trying
       to address only XML, or is more general. It mentions XML several
       times, but is worded as if it may also apply to things outside
       XML. We think that having a single encoding can be beneficial in
       many cases, and that XML on this point should not restrict things
       outside XML. We think that for XML, the considerations given in
       the comment (protocol vs. document) are important.
       We have added the following text:
       >>>> [S] When basing a protocol, format, or API on a protocol,
       format, or API that already has rules for character encoding,
       specifications SHOULD use rather than change these rules.
       EXAMPLE: An XML-based format should use the existing XML rules for
       choosing and determining the character encoding of external
       entities, rather than invent new ones. >>>>

    [806] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-Encodings
    [809]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0000.html





USEFUL LINKS
==============
[1] The version of CharMod you commented on: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/
[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited): 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/
[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID: 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/

Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 03:57:56 UTC