On 9/1/2014 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On 8/31/2014 11:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> It does not just apply to user agents. It's also the case for >>> developers, specification editors, users, etc. >> Then fix that part - it's the part that I didn't repeat that had the stuff I >> thought was more useful in terms of motivating the "irrelevancy". > Thanks for being patient with me and sorry for misunderstanding the > first time. How about: > > "Due to implementations sufficiently deviating from the encoding > labels listed in the IANA Character Sets registry and the desire to > stop legacy encodings from spreading further, this specification is > exhaustive about all these details and thereby renders the registry > irrelevant." > > Anne, Three sentences are better than one: "Over time, implementations have deviated from the encoding labels listed in the IANA character set registry. In a desire to stop legacy encodings from spreading further, this specification is exhaustive about <all these details>. As a result, implementations of this specification can ignore the registry." and I would like to make <all these details> more explicit, but I'm afraid, I don't quite know what to substitute. Is it just the labels for the encodings or also their detailed specifications? My take is, it's worth spelling this out. A./
Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 15:29:14 UTC