- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 06:51:16 +0100
- To: '"Martin J. Dürst"' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: "'Gunnar Bittersmann'" <gunnar@bittersmann.de>, <www-international@w3.org>
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: 07 September 2010 01:50 > To: Richard Ishida > Cc: 'Gunnar Bittersmann'; www-international@w3.org > Subject: Re: Updated article: Who uses Unicode? > > Hello Richard, > > The article says, at the end: > > "You can add a logo to your page provided by the Unicode Consortium if > it validates as UTF-8 using the W3C validator." > > It would be really good if you were giving an actionable link, rather > than putting the reader off by an apparent "there is something > somewhere, go search for it yourself" attitude. I added that and two other links - and added them in the translations too. > > Also, you might mention that some famous Web frameworks, in particular > Ruby on Rails (http://rubyonrails.org/) come with everything set up for > UTF-8 out of the box. (I don't now about Web frameworks based on other > programming languages.) Yes, good point, but the list is endless really, and I think that the figures say enough already. Btw, I wasn't intending to completely rewrite the article. > > On 2010/09/06 19:35, Richard Ishida wrote: > > I think it's being slightly more precise than actually needed, but I changed > the text to > > > > It is sometimes assumed that Unicode encodings are popular "behind the > scenes" but rarely used on the pages of major Web sites. > > > > And added a note: > > > > In this article, Unicode is short for a Unicode encoding. > > Why not use the wording that I proposed in my mail yesterday? Because I figured that the approach I took was the fastest and simplest fix. RI
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 05:51:49 UTC