Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Tue, 02 February 2010 00:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
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 25B9B3A68E3 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.364
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kcR+dQ+Zt8nm for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from looneymail-a4.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A863A695A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ps20323.dreamhostps.com (ps20323.dreamhost.com [69.163.222.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by looneymail-a4.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7607287C5; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:30:53 +0000
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@airemix.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4B656465.1080005@airemix.jp>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
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> <4B656465.1080005@airemix.jp>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, WeBMartians <webmartians@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [hybi] 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:30:18 -0000
(-cc whatwg to reduce cross-posting) On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, 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). I used "ANSI_X3.4-1968" because that's the canonical name for US-ASCII, and I used RFC1345 because that's the canonical reference. If you disagree with these choices, please update the IANA registry. On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, NARUSE, Yui wrote: > > 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. I only changed it in the cases where it referenced the actual encoding. > 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. The term "US-ASCII" caused confusion, unfortunately, which is why I changed to the less ambiguous ANSI_X3.4-1968. I agree that using the preferred MIME name is better than using the canonical name in general. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
- 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