- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:42:16 +0100
- To: "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday, February 19, 2004, 12:23:12 AM, Ernest wrote: >> From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> >> Because most stylesheets out there are in what? Most are in US-ASCII, >> I would guess, since the entire syntax of CSS uses US-ASCII. The only >> opportunities to have anything else are replaced content in:before and >> :after, which is not too common in practice since it doesn't work in >> MSIE/Win. >> >> So, if most stylesheets are US-ASCII then a default of UTF-8 would >> work pretty well. EC> Better hope that the author hasn't used any classes or IDs that don't use EC> non-ASCII characters as well. For non-English documents, I'd say that's EC> an unreasonable assumption, since its likely the author will be using EC> names that are meaningful to him in his native language. Certainly, although the fact that URIs are limited to US-ASCII means that pointers to such IDs are difficult to construct so they are used less than you might think. For a solution, see IRIs. Your point about classes is well made, however. Added to the point about comments, made by Boris, its clear that a significant percentage of stylesheets worldwide wil use an encoding that goes beyond US-ASCII. Some stats on this would help, of course. Its also clear that those stylesheets are currently relying on luck to be interpreted correctly. EC> Most US stylesheets /= Most stylesheets. <sarcasm> No, really? </sarcasm> EC> Think globally. Act locally! <irony> Thanks for the note to consider internationalization sometime, I must remember to do that. </irony> Actually the entire reason I waded in on this discussion, and the reason I alerted people like the I18N Activity lead to the discussion also, was a concern that the character encoding be correctly and robustly discoverable in a manner consistent with the rest of the web architecture. My observation that the syntax characters of CSS are exclusively drawn from US-ASCII (which is true) does not equate to a belief that US-ASCII is suitable for all Web content, or that what works for the US works for the world. As anyone that knows me will attest. [ Actually US-ASCII does not work for the US either, since for example Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other languages which are the native languages of sizeable percentages of US citizens need more than US-ASCII. ] -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 18:42:16 UTC