RE: [Encoding] false statement [I18N-ACTION-328][I18N-ISSUE-374]

> I predict (as I'm sure
> you would) that any attempt in the IETF to either depreciate the
> Registry or incompatibly revise/ update particular definitions
> would meet with a great deal of resistance, based in part on
> existing use in applications that are not web browsers. 

I'm sure there would be some resistance, but there's resistance
to everything.  Which applications don't want to be compatible
with the web?  I think it's worth a try , to do the right thing.

> I would
> expect much the same response if we somehow told the browser
> community that the IANA definitions were around long before
> their current generation of work and products, are
> well-established on the Internet, and that they should mend
> their ways even if it caused some existing pages to stop working.

This document is part of the mending.

> I don't like the solution of saying what amounts to "if you are
> a web browser using HTML5, you should, for compatibility with
> others, use these definitions and not the IANA ones".  But,
> given that neither community is likely to agree to change its
> ways, it may be the least bad alternative. 

I'm not sure the communities are separate. There's one
Internet and text flows readily between web and non-web.
Sure there are people who subscribe to one list or
another.

> .... Might "more historical information and discussion of
> use by non-web applications" be useful in that regard?  I tend
> to agree with you that it would, but I gather there is some
> resistance to making it part of the encoding document.

Sometimes you have to do more work than you want to,
In order to make things right. But I'm not sure it's  really
all that much.  Maybe all that's needed is a pointer from
the IANA registry to this document and vice versa, telling
readers to be aware of the other, and encouraging new
applications to use utf-8.


Larry

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 20:20:47 UTC