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

RE: [UAX29] i18n comment 12: Legacy vs. desired

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:23:29 -0000
To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006301c8805e$d103d6b0$730b8410$@org>

This is fixed IMO. See also comment #1.

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
 
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/blog/
http://rishida.net/

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ishida@w3.org
> Sent: 07 March 2008 11:35
> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: [UAX29] i18n comment 12: Legacy vs. desired
> 
> 
> 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 14:20:10 GMT

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