W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > September 2006

Re: [Comment on ITS WD] Richard's editorial comments on ITS

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:55:54 -0600
To: "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001601c6d5b2$6225d7a0$9b05a8c0@Breizh>

Hello Richard, all

This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3516 for our discussion.

Thank you very much for your comments. They were very useful.
We agreed to implement most of them. Please have a look at:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#introduction
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#basic-concepts
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#notation-terminology
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#datacategory-description


Out of the 45 comments about 3 have not been implemented as proposed, and a few others are not applicable anymore because of other
changes (i.e. the text was re-done when resolving other issues). The comments that have not led to the proposed changes are:


> Section 1
> It's not immediately obvious which examples relate to which bullet points
> - you have to check.  It would be much better to do something like add 
> "(Example X)" at the end of each line, to associate the point with the 
> right example. (Note that you can easily refer to examples by number using
> the i18n version of the xmlspec dtd, by pointing to the id of the example 
> in a specref element.)
YS> I think it looks OK now.


> Section 1.5
> "literate programming language"
> meaning?
YS> See e.g. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/lp.html I think the term is reasonably well-known and understood so that we
don't have to define it. Note also that its understanding is not important for the specification (this part simply describes about
how the specification was created).


> Section 2
> I think the "To summarize" paragraph repeats info we've heard before,
> so I didn't appreciate it in this location.  However, I thought it might
> be useful to set this out near the beginning of section 2, rather than 
> here - especially since this isn't the end of the section.
YS> I agree that it's a repeat. Looking at the other changes in this section, it seems a bit useless now. So I've simply removed it.


Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.

Regards,
-yves


The original comments are here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0000.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0001.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Jul/0002.html
> 
> We took the following decision on these comments, see
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/17-i18nits-minutes.html#item01 :
> 
> [[
> Yves: everbody at the last call agreed in leaving them to the editors
> ... so we skip over them now, to gain some time
> Richard: sounds good to me
> Felix: me as well]]
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 14:56:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:36 GMT