W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2011

HTML5 comments starting 3.2.5.3

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:48:15 -0700
To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476A9452502B@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
1. Section 3.2.5.3. The concept of paragraphs is explained and is made more difficult to apprehend because some text (such as headers) is not a paragraph while other very similar text--including text not enclosed by anything more than a section tag--is.

There should be greater emphasis on the fact that it is phrasing content?

2. Section 3.2.6. This section refers to the Unicode bidi controls. A reference to UBA would be Very Good here, I think.

3. Section 3.2.6. There is one sentence that reads:

--
However, the use of these characters is restricted so that any embedding or overrides generated by these characters do not start and end with different parent elements, and so that all such embeddings and overrides are explicitly terminated by a U+202C POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING character.
--

Shouldn't there be an explicit statement such as "any end tag for a run of phrasing content must be treated as if a U+202C had been inserted at that point"

4. Section 3.2.6. This note:

--
For convenience, where possible authors will likely prefer to use the dir attribute, the bdo element, and the bdi element, rather than maintaining the bidirectional-algorithm formatting characters manually.
--

I would prefer if it were rephrased slightly to read:

--
For convenience, where possible authors should use the dir attribute, the bdo element, and the bdi element, rather than maintaining the bidirectional-algorithm formatting characters manually.
--

I would also like it to be removed from a note and made normative (hence the use of "should").

5. Section 3.5.1. step 13 says "change the document's character encoding to UTF-8". I assume this means "transcode the document to UTF-8 if it isn't already in UTF-8"?

6. Section 4.1. It's good that the example shows a 'lang' attribute. Can there (should there) be a health warning that @lang is expected here?

7. Section 4.2.5. There is a sentence:

--
Exactly one of the name, http-equiv, and charset attributes must be specified.
--

I don't understand why 'name' is mutually exclusive with http-equiv and charset. I also don't see how http-equiv can be limited to a single occurrence, since in theory it can be used for multiple HTTP header values??

8. Section 4.2.5.3. Why is "content-language" non-conforming? It doesn't do anything, but should it be non-conforming. Is this the current expression of our old issue regarding "default document processing language"??

9. Section 4.2.5.3. The content language processing is not equivalent to HTTP Content-Language (and is noted as such). Why?

=== stop at 4.3.1 ===

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 05:49:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 July 2011 05:49:41 GMT