11663 2011-01-04 09:55:20 +0000 "non-shortest form" is more established than "overlong form" 2011-08-04 05:15:50 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 trivial --- 1 hsivonen ian ayg ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 43797 0 hsivonen 2011-01-04 09:55:20 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#overlong-form The spec talks about "overlong form". However, "non-shortest form" is more established Unicode jargon: http://www.google.com/search?q=UTF-8+overlong+form http://www.google.com/search?q=UTF-8+non-shortest+form It would make sense to use the term "non-shortest form" in the spec. 43800 1 zcorpan 2011-01-04 10:48:32 +0000 # [11:45] <zcorpan> "utf-8 overlong" - 12600 results. "utf-8 "overlong"" - 80900 results # [11:46] <zcorpan> "utf-8 non-shortest" - 25000. "utf-8 "non-shortest"" - 5690 # [11:46] <zcorpan> conclusion: ??? # [11:47] <Philip`> Google's result counts are extremely rough approximations and should not be taken seriously? 45202 2 ian 2011-02-07 22:41:54 +0000 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: "overlong" is the term that the UTF-8 spec (RFC3629) uses. Also, "non-shortest form" is really stilted and reads poorly. 53627 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:15:50 +0000 mass-move component to LC1