RE: LC comments disposition

Hi Felix,

> One information is still missing: What issues are potential 
> substantive issues? Yves, you had sent a mail about that to 
> Philippe, could you look for that, forward it and extract 
> the issue numbers (again).

I can't forward the email I sent because I don't have it anymore. But I can get the list of the issues, here they are (form the less
likely substantive to the more likely):

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3640
Change: Clarify inheritance aspect for Terminology

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466
Change: Move conformance text for Ruby and Directionality to Informative sections

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3459
Change: Allow ITS markup inside ITS markup

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467
Change: rubyText attribute becomes an element

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3612
Change: Re-instate the term attribute with "yes|no" value

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3464
Change: Addition of termInfoPointer


I do still have Philippe's answer email. And it was: "Looking at the changes, I agree with you that none of these changes would gain
much by going through a second last call. No new concept was introduced."

Since that time we had one more change: the removal of the redundant rbPointer attribute in the rubyRule element. I don't think it
would qualify as a substantive change because it was clearly a bug-fix/clarification and no processing result or expectation has
changed with that removal.


Cheers,
-yves