Section 3.4 - Encodings (Richard Ishida)

[darthcav]

Reference

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tools/2014Aug/0005

Original Comment

"ISO-8859-1, UTF-8, UTF-16; any language supported by these encodings"

All languages are supported by UTF-8, which should be the encoding of choice for all new developments.

[darthcav]

Additional comment

Reference (John Cowan): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tools/2014Aug/0006

Well, all languages that are supported by any standardized encoding. Some languages are supported only by font-kludge encodings. Unfortunately, such encodings are not purely legacy, as the Unicode mills grind slowly (for good reason) and people want their language on the Net quickly.

[nitedog]

I don't disagree with the response but I wonder if it is better to separate "content encoding" and "language". I think these are quite independent features. I've yet to see a tool that supports accessibility evaluation for "all languages supported by UTF-X".

[ysmartin]

Maybe the solution is just to change the feature name to just "content encoding". Is there any language-related aspect which is not covered by
a) content encoding, or
b) 2.4.2 localization and internationalization (i.e. localize user interface, localize reports, localize some tests e.g. readability).

If there is no such aspect, I would just remove "language" from the title, rather than splitting into two features.

[darthcav]

Resolution

Partial. This section will be splitted into character encodings and content language, according to the discussion above.