RE: Your comments on Character Model Fundamentals [LC076]

Dear Bjoern,

The I18N WG has reviewed your response to LC076 (below) and have the following additional comments, which we hope will satisfy you.

We feel that there is a link between C068 and the use (or abuse) of private use area code points. The linkage, succinctly, is that if you follow the other requirements in CharMod, the only code points that are available for the form of abuse described (prohibited) by C068 are PUA code points. Granted the prohibition extends to all other code points (as it should), but there is a more-than-tenuous link to the contents of this section and these doesn't appear to us to be a better location for this particular requirement.

With regard to your other comments about C076, you are correct and we are modifying the document to use the correct term (coded character set) instead of character encoding.

Best Regards,


Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> []On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Sent: 2004年10月27日 11:51
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: Your comments on Character Model Fundamentals [LC076]
> * Richard Ishida wrote:
> >LC076
> >
> inator.html#LC076
> >Decision: Partially-accepted You are correct that C068 and C069 do
> >strictly speaking not belong into the PUA section, but they are in
> >that section because they have a very strong connection to the other
> >things in that section.
> This does not satisfy me, I do not see such a "very strong connection",
> the section is about "Private use code points" and should thus only
> discuss "Private use code points".
> >>>>>>>>> C076 [C] Content MUST NOT use a code point for any purpose
> >other than that defined by its character encoding.
> >
> >This prohibits the construction of fonts that misuse e.g. iso-8859-1
> >to represent different scripts, characters, or symbols than what is
> >actually encoded in iso-8859-1. >>>>>>>>
> It seems you want so talk about "coded character sets" not "character
> encodings", if not this new text does not make much sense to me.
> I can live with removing C069.

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 17:25:02 UTC