[rfc-i] draft-hildebrand-html-rfc

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Jul 23 08:40:41 PDT 2012

On 2012-07-23 17:37, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> 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
>> everything non-ASCII.
> 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.
>>> This
>> 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
>>> matter
>>> quite a bit here, though.
>>>> 3.2.2.
>>>> Observation: that DOCTYPE is hard to generate with some XML
>>>> serializers,
>>>> and that's why HTML5 allows alternatives.
>>> I'm ok with changing this.  What do you recommend?
>> Also allow
>>   <!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
> done.

Will do.

> 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.

That'll be an interesting discussion.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list