- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:13:53 -0000
- To: "'John Cowan'" <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: <www-international@w3.org>
Thanks for the comments, John. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] > Sent: 09 February 2010 21:46 > To: Richard Ishida > Cc: www-international@w3.org > Subject: Re: For review: Character encodings in HTML and CSS > > Richard Ishida scripsit: > > > Comments are being sought on this article prior to final release. > Please > > send any comments to this list (www-international@w3.org). We expect > > to publish a final version in one to two weeks. > > I'd avoid the term "character set" altogether in favor of "character > repertoire". I was tempted, but I wanted to use 'character set' to encourage better understanding of what the term really means. > > I'd add that character encodings are sometimes called "charsets". Done. > > Unfortunately we are stuck with the SGML term "document character set", > though "document coded character set" would be more correct. > > You could add that coded character sets are sometimes called "code > pages". Done. > > Since this is a tutorial, I would leave out UTF-32 altogether. > Nobody uses UTF-32 on the web. I think I only mention it in passing. > > Third graf of "The Document Character Set": for "and a subset" read > "and represents a subset". Done. > > In the first sentence of "Character escapes", for "an way" read "a way", > for "the the" read "the", and omit the comma. In the second graf, > for "representing" read "directly representing". In the third graf, > add comma after "then", or else remove comma after "CSS" (either is > fine). Done. > > For "ie." read "i.e.", and for "eg." read "e.g." throughout. ie. and eg. are my preferred style. It's enough that I have to use American spelling ;-) > > In "Consider using a Unicode encoding", note that plain ASCII files are > already UTF-8. Done. > > "You may not have set the declarations that come with the HTTP header" > doesn't make sense to me. Changed to "You may not have control over the declarations ... > > In "Character encoding names", per above, for "not the character sets" > read "not the character repertoires or coded character sets". > > For "MIME type" read "media type", or on the first use "MIME media > type". Done at the point where it is defined. > > For "as if it was HTML" read "as HTML". Done. > > For "W3C standards interpretation" read "interpretation according to > W3 standards", to avoid the misreading "W3C standard interpretation" > (meaning the standard interpretation of the W3C, whatever that is). Done > > For "you get quirks" read "you get quirks mode". Done > > For "a small number of encodings" read "a few encodings". Done > > In "The XML declaration", note that if anything (even whitespace) > precedes the XML declaration, it will not be recognized as such. > I don't know what "(or XML protocol") means; is that an error for "(or > XML processing instruction)"? In any case, it should be left out. > "XML declaration" is the only standardized , and XML declarations are > not processing instructions in XML. > > In the first graf of "The HTML5 meta charset element", omit the comma. > > Given the constraints on the charset attribute of a/link/script, I'd > leave it out of a tutorial altogether. I was tempted, but I've been asked about it, so I felt it needed to be there (albeit briefly). > > I'd warn against character entity references in XHTML at all. They are > not interoperable. I do have a two paragraph subsection specifically related to that. RI > > -- > John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan > I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the > British > Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the > sentence > of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt > if > the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence > of > equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, > 1940 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2679 - Release Date: > 02/10/10 07:40:00
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 20:14:25 UTC