Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
"NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@airemix.jp> Sun, 31 January 2010 11:07 UTC
Return-Path: <naruse@airemix.jp>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605273A693F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TAgaW1kNzLY9 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www208.sakura.ne.jp (www208.sakura.ne.jp [202.181.97.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061FA3A6934 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www208.sakura.ne.jp (ksav01.sakura.ne.jp [210.224.165.38]) by www208.sakura.ne.jp (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0VB7bWc013265; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:07:37 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from naruse@airemix.jp)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (139.109.138.210.bn.2iij.net [210.138.109.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by www208.sakura.ne.jp (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0VB7Z2S013258; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:07:35 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from naruse@airemix.jp)
Message-ID: <4B656465.1080005@airemix.jp>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:07:17 +0900
From: "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@airemix.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; ja; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <9124e09b0911052218y5106a2d4qcda01ff67577679b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032337580.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B1905FC.1000205@verizon.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001300901270.22027@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B6466EB.2090909@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4B6466EB.2090909@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100130-1, 2010/01/30), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Anti-Virus: K-Prox Anti-Virus Powered by Kaspersky, bases: 31012010 #3169355, status: clean
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, WeBMartians <webmartians@verizon.net>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:07:17 -0000
(2010/01/31 2:05), Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, WeBMartians wrote: >>> Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII. >>> There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters >>> (less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII "specifications." The same can be >>> said about the higher end. >> >> Where the interpretation was normative, I've used the term >> "ANSI_X3.4-1968 (US-ASCII)" and referenced RFC1345. > > I think you just lost both readability and precision. > > Please keep saying "ASCII" or "US-ASCII", and then have a reference to > the ANSI or ISO spec that actually defines ASCII, such as > > [ANSI.X3-4.1986] American National Standards Institute, "Coded > Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for > Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. > > (taken from the relatively recent RFC 5322). > > RFC 1345 is a non-maintained, historic informational RFC that's nit > really a good definition for ASCII. If you disagree, please name a > single RFC that has been published in the last 20 years that uses RFC > 1345 to reference ASCII (I just searched, and couldn't find any). The use of US-ASCII and ASCII in draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-54 is correct. Changing all to ASCII or ANSI_X3.4-1968 is not correct. In draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-54, allthe term "US-ASCII" are used as "encoded as US-ASCII". This use is as encoding name. So the prefered MIME name, "US-ASCII" is correct. "ASCII" is used as * ASCII case-insensitive * ASCII lowercase * ASCII serialization. * ASCII <a char> like "ASCII :" or "ASCII CR" or "ASCII space" * If /code/, interpreted as ASCII, is "407" * upper-case ASCII letters * Unicode to ASCII * the IDNA ToASCII algorithm * UseSTD3ASCIIRules flags They looks refer to so-called ASCII, not definitions in the spec of ASCII. So the nickname "ASCII" is suitable for them. Anyway, latest so-called "ASCII" definition is named "ANSI INCITS 4-1986 (R2007)". http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+INCITS+4-1986+(R2007) And its ISO version is "ISO/IEC 646:1991 IRV". http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=4777 -- NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp>
- Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Soc… Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Soc… NARUSE, Yui
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Ian Hickson
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… SM
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Ian Hickson
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Ian Hickson
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Proto… Julian Reschke