W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Your comments on the Character Model [C080-C086, C090-C100, C102-C105, C107-C111]

From: Husband, Yin-Leng <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:48:56 +1100
Message-ID: <AA62447DB04E5A4DB580858FD05C26E3043EA2C0@SNOEXC01.asiapacific.cpqcorp.net>
To: <ishida@w3.org>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, "Husband, Yin-Leng" <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com>

Hello,

Thank you for responding to my comments.
I've reviewed the following
C084, C091, C092, C093, C094, C099, C100, C104
and accept all the decisions except for C104.

*****C104 [1075]3.7 "instances of the language" vs "the
   language"
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1077]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Character Escaping, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence
       "There is also a need, often satisfied by the same or similar
       mechanisms, to express characters not directly representable in
       the character encoding of instances of the language."
       Why "instances of the language" and not just "the language" ?
     * Decision: Not applicable
     * Rationale for "Not applicable": Languages don't have character
       encodings inherently associated with them. Language instances do.

It is basically my own lack of understanding of the rationale, 
i.e. why don't languages have inherently associated character encodings
whereas language instances do.  It boils down to not knowing the
difference between a language and a language instance.

I suggest that additional explanation or examples be given for the
sentence in question.



Yin-Leng Husband
Technology Strategist
Enterprise Integration & Development                         
Hewlett-Packard Company


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 February 2003 1:34 AM
To: Husband, Yin-Leng
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; w3c-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Your comments on the Character Model [C080-C086, C090-C100,
C102-C105, C107-C111]


Dear Yin-Leng,

Many thanks for your comments on the 2nd Last Call version of the
Character Model for the World Wide Web v1.0 [1].  We appreciate the
interest you have taken in this specification.

You can see the comments you submitted, grouped together, at 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByOriginator.h
tml#C048
(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the
end of the URI.)

The following comments were accepted and edits were made along the lines
you suggested. We do not need you to comment on the edits made, but if
you wish to, please reply to us within the next two weeks at
mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org and copy w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org.
        C080, C081, C082, C083, C085, C086, C090, C095, C096, C097,
C098, C102, C103, C105, C107, C108, C109, C110, C111


PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following additional comments and
reply to us within the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org
(copying w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the
decision taken. 
        C084, C091, C092, C093, C094, C099, C100, C104

Information relating to these comments is included below. You will
receive notification of decisions on remaining comments at a later date.

You can find the latest version of the Character Model at
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/ . 

Best regards,
Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG




DECISIONS REQUIRING A RESPONSE
==============================

*****C084 [980]1.2 "Use of control codes for various
   purposes"
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [982]WSArch WG review of Charmod
       LC #2
       Background, 8th paragraph, last bullet
       "Use of control codes for various purposes (e.g. bidirectionality
       control, symmetric swapping, etc.)."
       It would be useful to have links to reference material that
       explain the issues.
       E.g. "Use of control codes for various purposes (e.g.
       bidirectionality control [Unicode Standard 13.2], symmetric
       swapping [Unicode Standard 13.3], etc.)."
     * Decision: Rejected
     * Rationale for "Rejected": This is a Background section and the
       level of detail proposed would be out of place.

    [980] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-Background
    [982]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C091 [1016]3.1.1 Would be helpful to define
   "featural syllabary"
     * See also the following comments: [1018]C093
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1019]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Introduction, 2nd EXAMPLE, 1st sentence
       "Korean Hangul is a featural syllabary ..."
       Would be helpful to define "featural syllabary" and explain
       distinction between a "syllabary" and "featural syllabary". The
       1st and 2nd examples give the impression that the distinction is
       in arranging "into square syllabic blocks".
     * Decision: Not Applicable.
     * Rationale for "Not Applicable": We decided to simplify the text
by
       removing definitions such as abugida, abjad, etc.

    [1016]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsIntro
    [1019]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C092 [1021]3.1.1 "combines symbols for individual
   sounds of the language"
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1023]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Introduction, 2nd EXAMPLE, 1st sentence
       "... that combines symbols for individual sounds of the language
       ..."
       Are these "individual sounds of the language" phonemes or
       syllables?
       Is this the intent? - "... that combines symbols for individual
       phonemes [or syllables] of the language ..."
     * Decision: Partially accepted
     * Rationale for "Partially accepted": This section (3.1.1) is
       introductory. We don't want to use the term "phoneme" before the
       next section (3.1.2), where it is introduced.
     * Decision: Change "into square syllabic blocks" to "into square
       blocks, each of which represents a syllable".

    [1021]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsIntro
    [1023]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C093 [1025]3.1.1 "Indic scripts are abugidas"
     * See also the following comments: [1027]C006
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1028]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Introduction, 3rd EXAMPLE, 1st sentence
       "Indic scripts are abugidas."
       Would be helpful to indicate definition of "abugidas" explicitly.
       E.g. "Indic scripts are abugidas where each consonant letter
       carries an inherent vowel that is eliminated or replaced using
       semi-regular or irregular ways to combine consonants and vowels
       into clusters."
     * Decision: Not Applicable.
     * Rationale for "Not Applicable": We decided to simplify the text
by
       removing definitions such as abugida, abjad, etc.

    [1025]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsIntro
    [1028]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C094 [1030]3.1.1 "Arabic script is an example of an
   abjad"
     * See also the following comments: [1032]C093
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1033]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Introduction, 4th EXAMPLE, 1st sentence
       "Arabic script is an example of an abjad."
       Would be helpful to indicate definition of "abjad" explicitly.
       E.g. "Arabic script is an example of an abjad where short vowel
       sounds are typically not written at all."
     * Decision: Not Applicable.
     * Rationale for "Not Applicable": We decided to simplify the text
by
       removing definitions such as abugida, abjad, etc.

    [1030]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsIntro
    [1033]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C099 [1053]3.1.7 "Character" and "text" are defined
   circularly
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1055]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Summary, 1st paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentences
       "In the context of the digital representations of text, a
       character can be defined informally as a small logical unit of
       text. Text is then defined as sequences of characters."
       "Character" and "text" are defined circularly.
     * Decision: Not applicable
     * Rationale for "Not applicable": The circularity is intentional.
       The para in question says that the definition is informal.

    [1053]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsOutro
    [1055]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html


*****C100 [1057]3.6.2 UTF-8 or UTF-16 as a default
   encoding form
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1059]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Character encoding identification, 9th paragraph, 2nd sentence
       "[S] Specifications MAY define either UTF-8 or UTF-16 as a
default
       encoding form (or both if they define suitable means of
       distinguishing them), but they MUST NOT use any other character
       encoding as a default."
       Since specifications "MUST NOT use any other character encoding
as
       a default" other than "either UTF-8 or UTF-16" should the
       beginning of the sentence be "[S] Specifications MUST define
       either UTF-8 or UTF-16 as a default encoding form... " ?
     * Decision: Rejected.
     * Rationale for "Rejected": The provision of defaults is not
       compulsory.

    [1057]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-EncodingIdent
    [1059]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html



*****C104 [1075]3.7 "instances of the language" vs "the
   language"
     * Comment (received 2002-05-31) -- [1077]WSArch WG review of
Charmod
       LC #2
       Character Escaping, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence
       "There is also a need, often satisfied by the same or similar
       mechanisms, to express characters not directly representable in
       the character encoding of instances of the language."
       Why "instances of the language" and not just "the language" ?
     * Decision: Not applicable
     * Rationale for "Not applicable": Languages don't have character
       encodings inherently associated with them. Language instances do.

    [1075] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-Escaping
    [1077]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0032.html




USEFUL LINKS
==============
[1] The version of CharMod you commented on: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/
[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited): 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/
[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID: 
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

tel: +44 1753 480 292
http://www.w3.org/International/ http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 20:49:34 GMT

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