W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 4: Stripping out all whitespace

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:42:25 -0000
To: <public-webcgm@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ef01c97119$3704eac0$a50ec040$@org>

Thank you.  The i18n WG is satisfied by this response.

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Sent: 19 December 2008 16:00
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Response to WebCGM 2.1 Last Call comment: i18n comment 4:
> Stripping out all whitespace
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> The WebCGM Working Group has reviewed the comment you sent [1] about
> the
> WebCGM 2.1 Last Call Working Draft [2] published on 02 October 2008.
> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and send us
> comments.
> 
> The Working Group's response resolution to your comment is included
> below.
> 
> Please review it carefully and acknowledge this WebCGM WG response by
> replying to this mail and copying the WebCGM public mailing list
> <public-webcgm@w3.org>. Let us know if you agree with it or not before
> 11 Jan 2009.  If we receive no reply from you by January 11, then we
> will default your reply to "WebCGM WG response accepted."
> 
> In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
> 
> If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
> opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by
> the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in
> the W3C Recommendation Track.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> On behalf of the WebCGM Working Group,
> Thierry Michel, WebCGM WG Team Contact.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2008Oct/0000.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/
> _____________________________________________________________
> * Comment Sent: 11 Nov 2008 10:28:28 +0000
> * Archived:
> http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
> 
> The WebCGM WG has the following responses to your comment:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> SUMMARY of your comment:
> 
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Config.html#ACI-fontmap
> 
> Comment 4
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0811-webcgm/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Tracked by: RI
> 
> Location in reviewed document:
> 9.3.2.2
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/WebCGM21-
> Config.html#ACI-maplist]
> 
> Comment:
> 
> For cgmFont normalization, do you mean "stripping out all whitespace" or
> normalizing white-space to a single space, as per substitutionList?
> 
> RESPONSE to your comment:
> 
> Resolution:
> 
> The intent is indeed "stripping out all whitespace". This enables
> identical normalization results, for example, for a font name that used
> whitespace instead of camel case on the one hand, and on the other hand
> a font name that used only camel case (with no whitespace), or one that
> used hyphen or underscore in place of whitespace. These are legacy
> situations that arise in WebCGM practice. Please see the response to
> I18N WebCGM Comment #3 for more detail.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------- end -------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:42:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:42:38 GMT