W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > October to December 2007

[SMIL3.0] i18n comment 10: matching example for systemLanguage

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:29 +0100
To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: <www-smil@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00cc01c81652$f3528520$6501a8c0@rishida>

-----Original Message-----
From: tmichel@w3.org [mailto:tmichel@w3.org] 
Sent: 24 October 2007 14:21
To: Richard Ishida
Cc: www-smil@w3.org
Subject: Re: [SMIL3.0] i18n comment 10: matching example for systemLanguage

 Dear Richard Ishida ,

The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last
Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language
(SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007. Thank you for having taken the time to
review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at www-smil@w3.org if
you agree with it or not before 02 nov 2007. In case of disagreement, you
are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus
with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be
given the opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be
reviewed by the Director during the transition of this document to the next
stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.


For the SYMM Working Group,
Thierry Michel
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20070830201541.BDF774F0AF@homer.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/


Your comment on 4.3.2 Elements and Attributes:
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/
> Comment 10
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0708-smil30/
> Editorial/substantive: E
> Owner: AP
> Location in reviewed document:
> 4.3.2 systemLanguage
> matching example for systemLanguage
> Comment:In the switch element, the example for systemLanguage doesn't 
> mention matching, only exact tag matching.Probably good to remind 
> folks here. Other following examples also only use simple language 
> tags. We'd suggest using a Simplified Chinese (zh-Hans)vs. Traditional 
> Chinese
> (zh-Hant) example.

Working Group Resolution (LC-1824):
We will add a sentence to the example explaining that it is an
over-simplification, and refer people to rfc4647 for better language
matching examples.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 15:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:28 UTC