WF 2.0 says: "Implementations and documents must comply to the W3C
Character Model specification. [CHARMOD]"
WA 1.0 says no such thing. Is that intentional?
Does C003 in Charmod outlaw bdo?
(C013 is enforceable. So is C023.)
(C001, C002, C054 and C076 are not machine-enforceable as far as I
can tell.)
I guess C034 should be taken to mean that text/html without a charset
parameter or a meta is non-conforming. Right?
I think C073 shouldn't render a document non-conforming. Would it be
too annaying to emit a warning? Perhaps one warning per document
rather than per character?
I think authors wouldn't like warnings on C047 and C048. Moreover, I
think it should be concluded that Charmod SHOULD violation don't make
an (X)HTML5 document non-conforming. Correct?
Charmod doesn't make a normative reference to Charmod Norm, which is
a WD. Should I expect WA 1.0 to make a normative reference to Charmod
Norm if Charmod Norm retains more or less its current substance?
I am not particularly excited about checking the normalization of
source text, but I do think it would be reasonable to check the
parsed data.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
