W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Two new encoding related articles for review

From: Gunnar Bittersmann <gunnar@bittersmann.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:08:25 +0100
Message-ID: <532B3CA9.403@bittersmann.de>
To: www-international@w3.org
Richard Ishida scripsit (2014-03-17 17:29+01:00):

>> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-choosing-encodings-new
>>
>> However, I don’t think that the keywords should be marked-up as <strong
>> class="kw">
>>
>> Stick with code elements, or use span or b. Or for the character
>> encodings, no markup at all, as before.
>>
>> (Don’t replace all occurences of ‘strong’ with ‘code’, there’s a
>> ‘strongly’ in the text.)
>
> The idea was to make them stand out visually. I replaced strong with b.

You were using ‘ASCII’, “UTF-8’, ‘UTF-16’ and ‘UTF-32’ with no special 
visual emphasis throughout the upper three quarters of the article. Why 
here?

To my taste, it does not improve the readability of the text, quite the 
contrary.

If you really want to make them stand out visually: There’s still 
‘UTF-8’ and ‘ISO-8859-8-i’ without that markup in one of these 
paragraphs. And in other articles, such keywords are marked-up as <code 
class="kw"> and set in normal font weight. Here it’s <b class="kw">, 
bold font, inconsistently.

My proposal is: Display encoding names as normal text, no markup.

‘replacement’ and ‘x-user-defined’ are good candidates for that keyword 
markup, though. But not in bold, but in normal monospaced font, i.e. use 
the code element.


>> And shouldn’t this link to
>> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-visual-vs-logical#term_visualordering
>>
>> given that ‘logically ordered’ links to
>> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-visual-vs-logical#term_logicalordering
>>
>> ?
> No. That's what i wanted.

To me it’s strange that ‘logically ordered’ (marked-up as "termref") 
points to the description of that term while ‘visual encoding’ (also 
marked-up as "termref") does not accordingly, but points to the whole 
article instead.

I think the best phrase to use as link title for the whole article would 
be ‘should also be avoided’.

The anchor links might be out of the scope of this article; most of the 
target audience of qa-choosing-encodings don’t have to deal with RTL 
scripts, and Hebrew in particular. And those who do will read the entire 
article qa-visual-vs-logical anyway.

My proposal is: Link to that article just once, without fragment identifier:

… (Hebrew visual encoding) <a 
href="/International/questions/qa-visual-vs-logical">should also be 
avoided</a>, in favour of an encoding that works with logically ordered 
text …



»»
that maps every octet to the Unicode code point
««

This is the only time when the term ‘octet’ is used in this article. 
Would the term be clear to the reader? Or would it be better to use 
‘byte’ in this context (even though that might be less accurate)?

Cheers,
Gunnar
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 19:08:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:36 UTC