W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > July to September 2016

RE: Simplified or traditional for each Chinese macrolanguage

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:49:59 +0000
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Makoto Kato <m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp>, 劉慶 <ryukeikun@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9c335c76ad734d8685d8fa5ebf52f5ec@EX13D08UWB002.ant.amazon.com>
Martin mentioned:

> >> What do you think about having this information in CLREQ, or maybe in
> >> a separate I18N WG note if WG prefers? That should get wider reviews
> >> then.
> >>
> >> It might also be nice to explicitly mention that authors can/should
> >> add script subtag to pick the other choice than the default.
> >
> > The attachment is the list I'm currently going to submit to our code.
> > Two CLReq editors reviewed this list and think it looks good.
> >
> > Richard: could you review this list as well, and if everything looks fine, could
> you probably consider putting it as an I18N WG note? Editors of CLReq don't
> think this kind of details fit in CLReq.
> 
> It seems overkill to create a WG note for a list of about 40 lines. But of course
> if somebody writes the document and Richard is fine with handling the
> publishing overhead, I won't object.

It does seem like overkill for a WG Note. I don't actually agree with the editors of CLReq. This might not be part of the body of CLReq, but it would make a nifty appendix. 

If made standalone, I tend to think that this would make a better Q&A or article. We have quite a number of useful small documents, including those about languages and language tags. Not everything needs to be normative. 

> This also shows a possible way to integrate this information into CLReq:
> State it as information about current practice (e.g. Hakka is predominantly
> written with a (Taiwanese style) traditional Hanzi font), and leave the
> implementation details (which should be rather
> straightforward) to other specs or implementations.
> 

I agree.

Addison
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 14:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 October 2016 23:39:18 UTC