W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: I18N #6 -- proposal (incomplete)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:28:18 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081216161637.03841e20@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

At 10:43 PM 12/16/2008 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>Lofton,
>>INCOMPLETE:  We don't yet have a reply from I18N to our question about 
>>whether we should recommend a specific one of the four normalization 
>>forms.  Maybe it doesn't matter, i.e., any one of the 4 forms would work 
>>equally well?
>
>Maybe you should ping Richard again on this issue.

We could do that.

I was thinking of an alternative, since we are now 2 days away from the WG 
telecon.  At that telecon (the last in 2008) I hope to approve our draft #5 
and #6 (see [1]).  We then would have WG approval of all comments.  We 
could then immmediately send replies to each commenter, with perhaps a 3 
week reply deadline (else default:  accept).

As part of our message for #6, we could invite I18N to comment further on 
whether or not choosing one of the four normalization forms matters, and we 
could adjust our response to that specific comment if necessary.

What I like about the alternative is that it keeps us moving forward on a 
closure schedule, without having to wait for I18N.  (It would be nice to 
get our "send responses" step done before holiday breaks.)

Thoughts?

(Btw, [1] is more or less done, except for perhaps replacing some "@@" link 
indicators with the actual links, in some form or another.)

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 23:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 December 2008 23:29:27 GMT