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

Your comments on the Character Model [C164 - C167]

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:57:58 +0100
To: <karl@w3.org>
Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701c3100b$33acc070$7801000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2>

Dear Karl,

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#C112
(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the
end of the URI.)

The following comment was 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.
	C165


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. 
	C164
	C166
	C167

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
==============================


*****C164 Karl Dubost
   QA WG
   [590]3.1.2 QA Review for Charmod
     * Comment (received 2002-06-18) -- [592]QA Review for Charmod
       "[S] [I] Specifications and software MUST NOT assume that there
is
       a one-to-one correspondence between characters and the sounds of
a
       language."
       Here I clearly understand that there's not *necessary*
       correspondance but it could be sometimes. So it means for me that
       in the set of all possible values, some will be false, and so
       invalidate the one to one relationship.
       I don't know if it's better, but you will tell me:
       "[S] [I] Specifications and software MUST allow the
correspondence
       between one phoneme and mutliple characters when necessary."
       Because for me it seems more testable and comprehensive for a
       developper or a specification editor.
       As a general rule, even if it seems valid, avoid the use of MUST
       NOT when it's possible to define a MUST.
     * Our response (sent 2002-06-20) -- [593]Re: QA Review for Charmod
       This would be wrong because there are also multiple phonemes -
one
       character and multiple phonemes - multiple characters. Excluding
       the one-to-one case looked easier.
     * Decision: Rejected
     * Rationale for "Rejected": See our earlier response above.

    [590]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-WritingSystem
    [592]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0022.html
    [593]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0024.html

*****C166 Karl Dubost
   QA WG
   [600]3.1.7 QA Review for Charmod
     * See also the following comments: [602]C004 [603]C040 [604]C138
     * Comment (received 2002-06-18) -- [605]QA Review for Charmod
       "[S] When specifications use the term 'character' it MUST be
clear
       which of the possible meanings they intend."
       Ambiguous definition, can you clarify? What's the meaning of "be
       clear" in this context. The answer will depend on the people.
       Do you mean?
       "[S] When specifications use the term 'character', the
       specifications MUST define the possible meanings they intend."
     * Our response (sent 2002-06-20) -- [606]Re: QA Review for Charmod
       Yes. But 'possible meanings' -> 'meaning'.
     * Decision: Partially accepted.

    [600]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PerceptionsOutro
    [605]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0022.html
    [606]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0024.html

*****C167 Karl Dubost
   QA WG
   Various  QA Review for Charmod
     * Comment (received 2002-06-18) -- [609]QA Review for Charmod
       When you have multiple rules, please make it a list to be more
       readable.
     * Comment (received 2002-09-23) -- [610]FW: Query about CharMod
last
       call comment
     * Decision: Rejected.
       Rationale: The current layout makes the prose easier to read.
Note
       that we have marked the start and end of each statement.

    [609]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0022.html
    [610]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/i18n-editor/2002Sep/0039.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/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 14:14:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:33 GMT