- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:39:22 +0100
- To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-international@w3.org
On 01/09/2014 16:28, Asmus Freytag wrote: > 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: >> 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. Asmus, I think 'all these details' is spelled out in the two preceding paragraphs, and so can be left as is, or changed perhaps to 'all the above details'. RI
Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 16:39:59 UTC