- From: Martin J Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:45:44 +0100 (MET)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com (Larry Masinter)
- Cc: Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr, avine@dakota-76.eng.sun.com, www-international@w3.org
Larry answered me:
>> (1) Put the burden on the user.
>> (2) Put the burden on the rendering engine (which has to treat as
>> equivalent those two (in some cases even more) representations).
>> (3) Define some kind of preferred encoding, and require that all CLASS
>> names use it, so that comparison is simple.
>> (4) Use only characters where there is no such problem.
>
>Always do (4): use only characters where there is no problem. You can
>gradually turn case (3) into case (4) ("everyone agrees about the
>preferred encoding, so there's no problem.").
>
>Example:
> Lower case ASCII is the preferred encoding of upper-case ASCII.
>
>Now we have case-equivalence; no problem.
Larry - I always like your ideas, even if they are not real solutions.
Anyway, in our case:
a) Case is not a problem. From primary school kids up, everybody that
knows a script is supposed to know upper from lower case, if
that exists in that script. Of course, some conventions, such
as general class names upper case, private ones lower case,
or such, might be helpful.
b) To turn case (3) into case four, some concious effort is needed.
Otherwise, neither French nor German nor Spanish will ever
make it into classnames, whereas Russian, Hindi, or Japanese
won't have any problems.
Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 28 October 1996 13:47:01 UTC