- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:13:52 -0700
- To: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>
- CC: atom-syntax@imc.org, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Nicolas Krebs wrote: > [snip] > > Editorial comments. You could add > - http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-its-20070403/#directionality as > informative references, in Section 5.2 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-atompub-bidi-06#section-5.2 > - Why create atom:dir instead of re-use its:dir (in a Rationale section). > - What are the differences between atom:dir and its:dir . > There's no reason to introduce the added complexity of ITS here. I recognize that it's not a lot of added complexity, but ITS would add the need to support another new namespace and new MUST-level requirements that simply aren't needed. Further, Atom bidi does not need the rlo and lro values to indicate bidi overrides and ITS does not provide a means of explicitly indicating that no base directionality has been set (e.g. dir="") which is an important case for feeds aggregating content from multiple sources. - James > > others references/see also > - the various discussions (including > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg04474.html > http://bitworking.org/news/Not_Invented_Here ) wich leaded/caused > urn:ietf:rfc:4287 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287 to: > - create its own xml elements atom:author, atom:published, > atom:summary, and do not re-use dc: elements > - do not create its own lang attribute and allow xml:dir > - my previous mail about this subject/topic > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2006OctDec/0003.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2007AprJun/0017.html > - http://www.w3.org/blog/International/2008/03/26/internationalization_tag_set_interest_gr > http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 04:14:29 UTC