W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2008

[UAX29] i18n comment 12: Legacy vs. desired

From: <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:34:59 +0000
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080307113132.2E3F64F5ED@homer.w3.org>

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-12.html

Comment 12
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0801-uax29/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: RI

Location in reviewed document:
3 [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-12.html#Grapheme_Cluster_Boundaries]

Comment: 
The whole of section 3 is written in a way that suggests that default grapheme clusters are the norm, and extended grapheme clusters are a recommended extension. We feel that this the section should be re-edited to make it clear that the extended default grapheme cluster is the standard way to do things in the future, but that you *could* find applications dealing with the former definition.

 
To help with this, we suggest that you find a different word that 'extended' for the name of extended default grapheme clusters, and that you rename default grapheme clusters to something like legacy default grapheme clusters. 

 
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 11:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:53 GMT