- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:17:00 -0700
- To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Cc: <xml-editor@w3.org>
At 2003-03-22 00:10, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >The anchor name #sec-guessing gives the entirely wrong idea. There should be >no guesswork involved. There is necessarily guesswork involved -- not on the part of the processor following the algorithm described, but certainly on the part of the XML community, in taking as a premise the proposition that in practice, the only character encodings with which an XML processor will ever be confronted are those which the algorithm successfully identifies. There is no logical necessity for coded character sets, or character encodings, to fall into the class of character sets for which the algorithm works; as you will recall from the initial design discussion, some participants offered to design a character encoding which would defeat the algorithm. The group decided (rightly, I believe) that such a theoretical possibility was not enough to make the algorithm useless in practice, since such character sets will not be found in the wild. >Can you change if for #sec-encoding or similar? If there is a persistence >issue, >then maybe just maintain two anchors, changin the TOC to the new one. For what it's worth, I don't object to this change being made the next time someone touches the document, but I confess I don't think it's worth touching the document just to make this change; I think you are taking the choice of IDs too seriously. (I also confess that since I am not longer the responsible editor, it's not really any of my business.) Michael
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 14:26:31 UTC