[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol

From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
To: hybi at ietf.org
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:47:57 -0800
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846 at ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <9124e09b0911052218y5106a2d4qcda01ff67577679b at mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032337580.15540 at hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B1905FC.1000205 at verizon.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001300901270.22027 at ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B6466EB.2090909 at gmx.de> <4B656465.1080005 at airemix.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846 at ps20323.dreamhostps.com>

At 16:30 01-02-10, Ian Hickson wrote:

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.

Julian Reschke is correct; RFC 1345 should not be used as a normativereference. Please use the reference that he suggested ([ANSI.X3-4.1986]).


Regards,

-sm

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
  - From: Ian Hickson

References:
- Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
  - From: NARUSE, Yui
- Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
  - From: Ian Hickson

Prev by Date: Re: [hybi] Process!
Next by Date: Re: [hybi] Process!
Previous by thread: Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
Next by thread: Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.