On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Buck Golemon <email@example.com> wrote:
> Anne: Given that the intent is to implement exactly the whatwg spec, and the
> group is currently called "whatwg" (even though it may eventually become a
> historical artifact), is "whatwg-1252" most appropriate?
It's up to you I suppose, but "whatwg-1252" just seems like long term
it will lose its meaning. For the web "windows-1252" will always have
this meaning due to deployed content, so "web-windows-1252" if you
need to disambiguate from a different implementation of windows-1252
makes sense to me.