Creating a Character Model for W3C

Since [RFC 2070], [ISO 10646]/[Unicode] (hereafter denoted as UCS, Universal Character Set) has served as a common reference for character encoding in W3C specifications (see [HTML 4.0], [XML 1.0], and [CSS2]). This choice was motivated by the fact that the UCS:

* Is the only universal character repertoire available

* Covers the widest possible repertoire

* Provides a way of referencing characters independent of the encoding of a resource

* Is being updated/completed carefully

* Is widely accepted and implemented by industry. As long as data transfer on the WWW was primarily unidirectional (from server to browser), and the main purpose was rendering, the direct use of the UCS as a common reference posed no problems. However, from early on, the WWW included bi-directional data transfer (forms). Recently, purposes other than rendering are becoming more and more important. The WWW has traditionally been seen as a collection of applications exchanging data based on protocols. It can however also be seen as

. . .
o measure the degree to which they have been met. Also, some requirements conflict with each other. Where such conflicts are known, the conflict and a preference (i.e. which requirement has greater weight) is indicated. 2. String Identity Matching 2.1 Problem String identity matching is a subset of the more general problem of string matching. String matching in general can be done with various degrees of specificity, from very approximate matching such as e.g. regular expressions or phonetic matching for English, to more specific matches such as case-insensitive or accent-insensitive matching. This document deals only with string identity matching. Two strings match as identical if they contain no user-identifiable distinctions. For more details on the meaning of user-identifiable distinctions, see the following explanations as well as subsection 2.3 and subsection 2.4. Any kind of less specific matching is not discussed in this document. At various places in the WWW infrastructure, strings, and in particular identifiers, are compared for identity. If different places use different definitions of string identity matching, this results in undesired unpredictability. Such comparisons are unproblematic if the expectations of th
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Identity Matching, Character Set, ISO Unicode, Structure Document, Examples Lower-case, C9 Unicode, URI URIs, I18N WG, UCS-4 Variable, COMBINING DIAERESIS, string identity, identity matching, string identity matching, w3c specifications, matching specification, identity matching specification, character model, character encoding, consistent behavior, rfc 2070, character model w3c, user expectations, processing model rfc, control codes, model w3c specifications,
Approximate Word count = 2121
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Creating a Character Model for W3C