Re: Comments on Charmod PR publications

Hello Bjoern,

This is just a personal reply.

At 18:24 04/11/23, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
 >
 >Dear Internationalization Working Group,
 >
 >  It seems that the latest versions of http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ and
 >http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/ have been published in violation
 >with the current operative W3C Process document. The Process document
 >requires that all comments have been addressed by the Working Group, but
 >for example
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Apr/0020.html
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Aug/0000.html
 >
 >have not been addressed at all.

We have to check why we haven't addressed these comment. This may
take some time. One reason for not addressing one of the comments, in
particular for the later comment, may be that it came quite
a long time after the Last Call deadline. Another reason, also
for the second comment, may be that it contained questions
only, and no clear indication of what you thought the document
should do, or why.

For the first comment, at the moment I'm really at a loss to
understand why we overlooked it, and I would like to appologize
if it was my fault.

It would have been very helpful if you had pointed out this
problem when we sent you the notifications, rather than now
that the documents are published. But having very often been
on the commenting side, I understand that keeping an overview
of one's comments is not always easy.


 >This also applies to some follow-up comments such as
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Oct/0048.html
 >
 >which has not been addressed either.

We have looked at that mail, and discussed that issue, in several
teleconferences. I remember very well that we decided that because
the whole criterion containing the word 'misused' was gone, there
wasn't really a need for much clarification anymore.

Issue LC076, like all other issues that had a formal objection,
where looked at carefully in a teleconference with the Director,
but in all instances, the decisions of the WG were upheld.

 >I further note that the removal of
 >the entire section 7 of the Charmod LC document clearly invalidates my
 >review of the document as I've indicated in
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0007.html
 >
 >and the removal is thus a substantive change which requires that the
 >document is returned to the Working Group for further work (which would
 >require publication of another LC WD to proceed).

First, this comment was sent to a TAG list, suggesting an action for
the TAG, which the TAG apparently has not taken. The www-tag list
is a list for discussion of architecture issue including the members
of the TAG, but it is not a list where all comments are automatically
tracked, or even exectuted.

As we (the I18N WG) have not received this comment, I have no idea
how we should have been able to address it.

On the actual matter of the split, we (the I18N WG as well as W3C staff
including process experts, and I guess at least implicitly also the
TAG and the Director) have carefully evaluated how the process document
applies to this case, and the conclusion was that there were no
depenedencies of the 'Fundamental' part on the 'Resource Identifier'
part, and the split did not affect the content of each part, and
so the split was just an editorial measure in order to allow
the two parts to progress at different speeds, without affecting
the substance of the document.


 >It further seems that
 >this change is not properly documented, the changes document states
 >something to this effect, but the note is marked up with <del> implying
 >that the LC document had this note but it did not.

Well, this <del> is there because that text should obviously
not appear in the final version. I agree that that's a hack,
but I guess the average reader can figure it out, and if not,
s/he can check the actual version.


 >Last but not least it seems that some promised edits have not actually
 >been made, e.g. in
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Oct/0040.html
 >
 >I've been told that the prose text for C076 will be changed to discuss
 >something but character encodings but it still mentions "iso-8859-1"
 >which still does not make sense to me.

In that email, you were told "we are modifying the document to use the 
correct term (coded character set) instead of character encoding".
We have made that change. In
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Oct/0041.html,
you respond (re. that change) as follows:

 >>>>>>>>
 >With regard to your other comments about C076, you are correct and
 >we are modifying the document to use the correct term (coded
 >character set) instead of character encoding.

Okay, thanks.
 >>>>>>>>

I'm not sure why you claim that we didn't make edits that we
promised to make in that email.


 >There is little that can be done about some of these issues (and there
 >are actually more but they are of less concern to me), but I want my
 >comments formally addressed by the Working Group and I thus hereby re-
 >submit all unaddressed comments (including but not limited to those
 >I've mentioned, I can't check them all right now).

Given that comments get lost, and that we can't read your mind,
I don't think that 'I thus hereby resubmit all undaddressed comments...'
will work at all.

For
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Aug/0000.html
I suggest that you submit an actual comment, rather than a series
of questions. To answer some of the questions in that mail, no, you
didn't overlook anything.

For
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Apr/0020.html,
I think that your comments are clear enough, and that we should
(re)consider them.

For all other comments, please submit at least a pointer to an email
where you sent that comment, or some other pointer, and an explanation
why you think we have not considered that comment (unless that's obvious
like the two links above). Also, please if possible send each comment
in a separate mail, or carefully number your comments. Many thanks
in advance.


Regards,    Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 14:26:26 UTC