Fix #202 Errata reported by @shujikamitsuna #203
Conversation
|
The errata part looks good to me. The "Specifying Content Restrictions" part seems unrelated to the errata? |
But Richard, this is a PR... :-) @xfq: Yes, I should have branched when submitting the proposal for action-947 |
Includes: * Definition of "application internal identifier" and "user-facing identifier" terms * Addition of a C0/C1 control restriction * Re-definition from the "full range of Unicode" to the *non* restriction to ASCII. * Additional editing and refactoring.
index.html
Outdated
| <p>One of the ways in which string matching can be made more effective and consistent is by applying restrictions to the content that is to be matched. Document formats and protocols often do this by defining a namespace or set of rules for what is legal in a given context.</p> | ||
| <p>One of the ways in which string matching can be made more effective and consistent is by applying restrictions to the content that is to be matched. When building a <a>vocabulary</a> and especially when defining <a>user-supplied values</a> within that vocabulary, specifications for document formats and protocols often define a namespace or set of rules for what is legal in a given context. This usually includes length and content restrictions.</p> | ||
|
|
||
| <p class="requirement"><span class="qrec">[S]</span> Specifications SHOULD NOT allow the <code>C0</code> (<span class=uname>U+0000</span> to <span class=uname>U+001F</span>) and <code>C1</code> (<span class=uname>U+0080</span> to <span class=uname>U+009F</span>) control characters.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the context of this guidance? I think in context like HTML phrasing content, control characters should be allowed. If it refers to identifiers, we should mention that.
Another question: should we allow surrogates and noncharacters?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's in the context of identifiers. I can clarify.
Unpaired surrogates and non-character code points are mostly handled by data types such as DOMString or definitions in the Infra spec. It's not wrong to ban them here, though. You heard us struggling with describing the rules in the teleconference. Anyway, point taken: more work is needed here.
index.html
Outdated
|
|
||
| <p>There are two broad classes that strings or identifier types fall into: those that are meant to be seen, read, or interacted with by humans (and thus might be expected to contain natural language text); and those that are application or protocol internal and not intended for human interaction.</p> | ||
| <p>There are two broad classes of identifer: <a>user-facing identifiers</a> and <a>application internal identifiers</a>.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"identifer" should be "identifier" or "identifiers" here.
https://www.w3.org/2020/09/17-i18n-minutes.html - Converted recommendation related to display names for application internal to a requirement
💥 Error: 403 Forbidden 💥
PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Sep 17, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC).
More
PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:
🚨 HTML Diff Service - The HTML Diff Service is used to create HTML diffs of the spec changes suggested in a pull request.
🔗 Related URL
If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.