> My bet is that THERE WILL BE NO 2.1 document.
Then my concern about time to 2.1 or 2.X is a valid concern.
>> My question to you (Terry, Eric, Dan) is whether the change
>> I'm suggesting will break anything if it goes in now?
> Yes, it will: If I put ૥ (or whatever) all over my documents, and
> the HTML 2.0 spec specifies that this document is legal, and yet it
> doesn't work on 95% of the browsers in existence, then we
> lose.
What are you talking about? I can put ૥ in a document today
without violating SGML conformance. The appearance of non-SGML
characters in a document is not a reportable markup error (according
to ISO 8879 4.267), and, therfore, does not produce non-conformance.
In fact, I just tried the following on NetScape, Mosaic, and
OmniWeb and it produced identical results! In each case the
character number was truncated to 8 bits yielding 'A'! Obviously
this isn't going to break any browser. As for "doesn't work",
I'm not sure what you mean by "work". What does "work" mean?
The issue is whether it breaks anything or changes the language.
It doesn't and if you believe otherwise, I'm open to any convincing
arguments.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
> Making ISO10646 the document character set is NOT just an editorial
> change. It is substantive. And while I agree that the impact on
> existing practice is minimal, it is NOT zero.
I disagree. In this context, I consider substantive to mean that some
change would be required either in an existing HTML application or in existing
HTML data. Changing the doc charset requires neither a change to software
or data; nor does it introduce the possibility of data that violates
the existing specification of HTML as a language. Therefore, it is
an editorial change.
I'm open to you or anyone showing me this isn't true.
Regards,
Glenn