12495 2011-04-14 16:35:57 +0000 please mark the reference to RFC1345 as non-normative 2011-08-12 20:20:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 julian.reschke ian annevk brunoaiss ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47452 0 julian.reschke 2011-04-14 16:35:57 +0000 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. 50120 1 annevk 2011-06-22 21:46:24 +0000 That is not what the quote says. Did you ask for clarification somewhere? 50144 2 julian.reschke 2011-06-23 07:49:16 +0000 I did, and did not get any. 52990 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:05:50 +0000 mass-moved component to LC1 54790 4 ian 2011-08-12 20:20:18 +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: 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.