Re: LC comments disposition

Hi Yves, all,

Thank you for the list. Please have another look at
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc-replies.html , esp.
sec. 1.3.

I think we should have another issue for ruby which describes the change
we made, or subsume it under 3466. 3466 is very packed already with ruby
/ directionality / IRI. Yves, could you put this on the agenda of
today's call? Also as an input to "All to think about features at risk"
see my mail at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0425.html .

All: *Please look at the lc-replies document and give feedback*.
Unfortunatly, we will not be able to vote for CR transition request
today, since we have no feedback from i18n core on 3466, and I still
need technical help from Sebastian for
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3514 .

I'm afraid it is very likely that we will have to go to CR in November,
which is bad, since it is after the end of our current charter.

Felix

Yves Savourel wrote:
> 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
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 03:25:26 UTC