- From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:05:12 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-international@w3.org
On 8/31/2014 11:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On 8/27/2014 10:37 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: >>> "Historically encodings and their specifications (if any) were kept track >>> of by the IANA Character Sets registry. For the purposes of specifications >>> using this specification, that registry no longer relevant." >> This last version is workable in the sense that it removes objectionable >> statements. It is, however,less relevant to the users of the specification. > Why? It explains that for their purposes IANA Character Sets is done for. But gives less detail/motivation than the proposed alternative. > > >> I personally would find some statement along the line given in the quote >> starting with "User agents..." preferable because it addresses the issue >> from the point of view of users of the specification (as well as writers of >> derived specifications), and presents the loss of relevance of the IANA >> registry as consequence of a particular (and important) design decisions >> and not as an axiom. > It does not just apply to user agents. It's also the case for > developers, specification editors, users, etc. Then fix that part - it's the part that I didn't repeat that had the stuff I thought was more useful in terms of motivating the "irrelevancy". A./ >
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 21:05:28 UTC