W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

RE: I18n comment: 666 intentions

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:51:07 -0000
To: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, <www-style@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006401c61e80$f7df1fc0$6501a8c0@w3cishida>

> From: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: 21 January 2006 11:34
> To: ishida@w3.org; www-style@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: I18n comment: 666 intentions
> 
> 
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:51:55 +0100, <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
> > Comment from the i18n review of:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/
> >
> > Comment 19
> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-css3-selectors/
> > Editorial/substantive: E
> > Location in reviewed document:
> > Sec. 6.6.6
> >
> > Comment:
> > What is the intention of this section?
> 
> This was discussed before on www-style:
>   <http://www.w3.org/mid/43B3F3EB.8030107@metalab.unc.edu>
> 
> See also:
>   
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0512291707320.17886@dhals
im.dreamhost.com>
> 

I suspect that it will continue to intrigue if not confuse people, and that you should consider adding the rationale, eg.

"Intentionally left blank in order to retain previous section numbering after this section was removed."

Just an idea.

RI
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 11:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT