- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:51:13 +0000
- To: www-international@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23646 --- Comment #5 from John C Klensin <john+w3cbugs@jck.com> --- Addison, This all sounds reasonable. Especially given the tendency for folks with other applications to try to generalize from web specs because the web is so popular and familiar to users, I think it suggests that the document would be considerably improved by some introductory text that stresses the limited applicability (could go in the preface or in Section 4 before the table) and what "alias" actually means in that table (either before the table or in an appropriate note). "Encoding names that can usually be considered equivalent for rendering HTML web pages" would probably do the latter job although you or Anne can probably come up with something better. FWIW, we should also probably try to get "US-ASCII" out of our preferred terminology repertoire. It results, AFAIK, for some misunderstandings around the IETF and elsewhere 20-odd years ago. The name of the relevant standard, repertoire, and coding system is "ASCII" ("American Standards Code for Information Interchange"), named back when ANSI's name was still "American Standards Association" or "ASA". "US-ASCII" would be justified if there were, e.g., "CA-ASCII", "MX-ASCII", "BR-ASCII", etc., but there aren't. "EU-ASCII", "JP-ASCII", or "ISO-ASCII" don't exist either and would be oxymorons if they did. No problem with the document --listing it as a non-preferred synonym for "ASCII" is fine -- but I note that this discussion has used it as if it were the preferred and most precise form. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 11:51:17 UTC