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

Re: Simplified or traditional for each Chinese macrolanguage

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:08:35 -0400
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, 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: <8d3ba79c-6011-a0fc-b5eb-15ca59922d65@inkedblade.net>
On 07/27/2016 10:49 AM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> 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.

I agree with making it an appendix to CLREQ. I would format
it as a table, however, using <table class="data">.

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 20:09:21 UTC

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