This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Citing the decision for ISSUE-101 in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0302.html>: "As such, we found the objection to referencing a for-pay document stronger than the objection to referencing RFC 1345, even if the RFC does not provide a normative definition for ASCII." So it seems the decision was based on the assumption that RFC 1345 is not used as normative reference. However, it is.
That is not what the quote says. Did you ask for clarification somewhere?
I did, and did not get any.
mass-moved component to LC1
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: It is normative. It gives the mapping of bytes to Unicode characters, which is what we need. Whether the document itself claims to be normative or not is besides the point — we can still make it a normative reference, that then makes it one.