W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Comments on Charmod PR publications

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:31:07 +0100
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <41c24b16.122512000@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Martin Duerst wrote:
>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.

Well, it took the Working Group more than six months to come back to me
and I got the responses all at once which made it quite difficult to
review the them; I still have not responded to all of them due to lack
of time; if my comments had been timely addressed (as required in the
Process document) it would have been much simpler. Note that I generally
found the I18N WG dealt well with comments, certainly better than some
other Working Groups in my experience.

>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.

Well, I would consider my follow-up comment a new comment, it considers
new information and essentially asks for something different than the
original commment.

>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.

That Fundamentals does no longer depend on Resource Identifiers is
exactly what invalidates my review as the LC document did.

>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.

Well, the change would trigger additional changes to keep the rest of
the text in sync with the change and I assumed the Working Group would
do that. Quoting the new text would probably have been useful to avoid
such problems.

>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.

I think going through the list archive and checking for all comments
whether they have been formally addressed should suffice, no need to
read my mind. This would be quite simple if the responses were actual
follow-ups to the original comment rather than new postings on their
own. For my comments on section 7 for example, I only noticed that
they have not been addressed because they showed up when searching
for my comments on the same section that I've posted on the first LC
when writing comments on the new charmod-resid CR; I actually thought
these comments did not make it through the web interface as I did not
hear from the Working Group about them.

Thanks so far.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 15:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:35 GMT