RE: [Comment on ITS WD] Richard's editorial comments on ITS

Thankyou for doing all this.

I'm Satisfied.

RI

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

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] 
> Sent: 11 September 2006 15:56
> To: 'Richard Ishida'
> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] Richard's editorial comments on ITS
> 
> Hello Richard, all
> 
> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3516 for our discussion.
> 
> Thank you very much for your comments. They were very useful.
> We agreed to implement most of them. Please have a look at:
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#i
> ntroduction
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#b
> asic-concepts
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#n
> otation-terminology
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#d
> atacategory-description
> 
> 
> Out of the 45 comments about 3 have not been implemented as 
> proposed, and a few others are not applicable anymore because 
> of other changes (i.e. the text was re-done when resolving 
> other issues). The comments that have not led to the proposed 
> changes are:
> 
> 
> > Section 1
> > It's not immediately obvious which examples relate to which bullet 
> > points
> > - you have to check.  It would be much better to do 
> something like add 
> > "(Example X)" at the end of each line, to associate the 
> point with the 
> > right example. (Note that you can easily refer to examples 
> by number 
> > using the i18n version of the xmlspec dtd, by pointing to the id of 
> > the example in a specref element.)
> YS> I think it looks OK now.
> 
> 
> > Section 1.5
> > "literate programming language"
> > meaning?
> YS> See e.g. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/lp.html 
> I think the 
> YS> term is reasonably well-known and understood so that we
> don't have to define it. Note also that its understanding is 
> not important for the specification (this part simply 
> describes about how the specification was created).
> 
> 
> > Section 2
> > I think the "To summarize" paragraph repeats info we've 
> heard before, 
> > so I didn't appreciate it in this location.  However, I thought it 
> > might be useful to set this out near the beginning of section 2, 
> > rather than here - especially since this isn't the end of 
> the section.
> YS> I agree that it's a repeat. Looking at the other changes 
> in this section, it seems a bit useless now. So I've simply 
> removed it.
> 
> 
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we 
> don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
> 
> Regards,
> -yves
> 
> 
> The original comments are here:
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0000.htm
> > l 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0001.htm
> > l 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0002.htm
> > l
> > 
> > We took the following decision on these comments, see
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/17-i18nits-minutes.html#item01 :
> > 
> > [[
> > Yves: everbody at the last call agreed in leaving them to 
> the editors 
> > ... so we skip over them now, to gain some time
> > Richard: sounds good to me
> > Felix: me as well]]
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:49:12 UTC