Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jul 23 08:37:20 PDT 2012
On 7/21/12 2:03 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>Which reminds me: are we ok with non-ASCII characters being represented
>by their UTF-8 encoding? For those stuck in the previous millennium we
>could simply require ASCII encoding, and use character references for
I think that's up to the author for what gets their point across the most
clearly. Allowing UTF8-encoded codepoints doesn't mean you MUST use them.
>>I was hoping to avoid having to deal with the what seems like a desire
>> *not* to provide a stable reference on behalf of the HTML community.
>The "WHATWG" part of the HTML community.
Yes, that's exactly the conversation I'm trying to avoid.
>> should probably say something about the W3C, and whatever level we think
>> is appropriate. "Widely-implemented at the time of publishing" may
>> quite a bit here, though.
>>> Observation: that DOCTYPE is hard to generate with some XML
>>> and that's why HTML5 allows alternatives.
>> I'm ok with changing this. What do you recommend?
> <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM 'about:legacy-compat'>
>(per http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#the-doctype, assuming
>we want to do HTML5)
Hm. IANA's URI registry calls out "about:" as pointing to
draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme, which doesn't have a reference to
legacy-compat yet. The IANA considerations portion of the HTML5 spec
doesn't call out a modification to the new about: registry. Hence,
someone should probably follow up to ensure that the registration gets
I'm fine with the change, though.
>> We're going to need to have requirements for browser support/testing.
>Yes. Observation: Windows XP is approaching EOL, and on Vista, you can
>run IE9 which doesn't have this problem.
If we go down the HTML route, it's imperative that the RFC editor set the
browser requirements as soon as possible, or we're doomed.
More information about the rfc-interest