W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > May 2002

Re: breadth of scope

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:42:57 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020528113721.044b3e40@localhost>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Jeremy Carroll), www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Hello Jeremy,

At 00:12 02/05/28 +0900, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>This is a last call comment from Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com) on
>the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).
>
>Semi-structured version of the comment:
>
>Submitted by: Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
>Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): RDF Core WG
>Comment type: substantive
>Chapter/section the comment applies to: 2 Conformance
>The comment will be visible to: public
>Comment title: breadth of scope
>Comment:
>Concerning sections 1 and 2 RDF Core is concerned that the scope of 
>charmod is overly broad.
>In particular, there appears to be no acknowledgement that some languages 
>being defined by W3C working groups may not be intended as web languages 
>and hence not have a need to address
>internationalization issues. There may be an implicit (and false) 
>assumption that all W3C recommendations specify (only) web languages with 
>processing models.

Can you please clarify the following:

What is, in your definition, a 'web language'? Can you give
actual examples of W3C work that are not 'web languages'?
W3C has a commitment to universal access and therefore to
internationalization. Why do you think that something that
is not a 'web language' would not need to address
internationalization?

Do you think that a 'web language' implies that there has to be
a process model?

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 23:24:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:31 GMT