- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:42:39 -0700
- To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Comment 15: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174808.EFB774F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1386) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 4 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, H58, Description Comment: "(Note that HTML only offers the use of the lang attribute, while XHTML (transitionally) allows both attributes or onlyxml:lang , respectively, since lang was removed in XHTML 1.1.)" This would be clearer if it said (Note that HTML only offers the use of the lang attribute, while XHTML 1.0 (as a transitional measure) allows both attributes, and XHTML 1.1 allows only xml:lang.) ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your suggestion and have changed the description of these techniques accordingly. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 16: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174826.EB0084EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1387) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 5 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, example 1 Comment: This example, unlike the two following, omits the element. It seems at best inconsistent. (Note, btw, that these examples are invalid, since the title element is required.) ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The draft has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 17: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174852.4A2774EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1388) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 6 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, H58, Resources Comment: There is a pointer to RFC 3066 'Tags for the Identification of Languages'. This specification has now been superceded by RFC3066bis, although, unfortunately, there is no number for the new RFC just yet. We suggest that you add a new link as soon as possible. In the meantime, you may wish to point to http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have updated the reference to refer to the updated RFC 4646. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 18: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174919.B3C5F4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1389) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 7 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, Resources Comment: There is a link to Using language information in XHTML, HTML and CSS We suspect that what you meant to link to was Declaring Language in XHTML and HTML [http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/language-decl/] ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The link has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 19: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174935.06B664F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1390) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 8 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, Resources Comment: There is no mention of bidi in this technique, so we think the last two links in this section are irrelevant. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Agree. They are not needed here and are referred to in the related techniques on text direction. The references have been removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 20: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175007.B909F4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1391) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 10 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, Tests Comment: Step 3 should say 'conforms to RFC 3066 or its successor', since RFC 3066 is now, already out of date, and RFC 3066bis should be used. Note that hopefully it will be possible to point to its successor very soon - we are awaiting the assignment of an RFC number. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with this suggestion and have updated the reference to refer to RFC 4646 or its successor. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 21: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174948.D0ADE4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1392) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 9 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57, Tests Comment: Step 2 should say 'a lang and/or xml:lang attribute'. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your suggestion and have added xml:lang to step 2. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 22: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175029.ADF8E4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1393) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 11 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58, title Comment: This technique is titled: Using the lang attribute to identify changes in the natural language But it should make reference to the xml:lang attribute too. We suggest: Using language attributes to identify changes in the natural language ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your suggestion and have changed the title of the technique. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 23: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175043.4F51C4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1394) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 12 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58 example 1 Comment: Is je ne sais quoi really French still? ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- You are correct. The phrase "je ne sais quoi" is listed in english dictionaries. The example has been removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 24: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175106.27BF64EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1395) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 14 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58, Resources Comment: This is a strange version number, and the link points to the First Edition, whereas we are up to the 3rd edition now, and soon 4th. Please point to the generic URI http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The link has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 25: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175128.95DFB4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1396) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 15 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58, Resources Comment: This points to an obsolete document. Please update to point to http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The link has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 26: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175145.6C0704F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1397) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 16 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58, Tests Comment: Please add text referring to xml:lang to the procedure. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your suggestion and have added xml:lang to the procedure. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 27: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175205.E14354EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1398) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 17 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H58 Tests Comment: Please require conformance to RFC 3066 *or its successor*, since it has already been succeeded, and change this as soon as RFC 3066bis has an RFC number. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with this suggestion and have updated the reference to refer to RFC 4646 or its successor. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 28: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175241.41FBF4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1399) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 18 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Descn Comment: Ruby text is said to be rendered "above or immediately before the base text'. The word 'before' here is a technical usage meaning above horizontal text or to the right of vertical text. This is not clear to the reader of this technique, and should be made so. The sentence "A Ruby annotation that gives the meaning of the base text usually follows the base text" is also not clear. It should say that sometimes Japanese uses ruby related to the meaning of text on the other side of the base text (visually) from the phonetic annotation. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your recommendations and have modified the description. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 29: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175333.276E04EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1400) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 20 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Examples Comment: Examples 1 and 2 should have rp tags. There is no good reason to leave them out. This will just set a bad example. This comment, of course, affects Example 3 also. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thank you for your comment. We've removed example 1 and 2, and modified the other examples to explain the use of the rp tags. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 30: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175314.32AF54EFAA@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1401) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 19 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Desc Comment: "Ruby annotation is unnecessary in languages such as Hebrew, where Unicode fonts can include diacritical marks that convey pronunciation. It is also unnecessary in English and European languages." Note that Ruby provides for annotations that can equally well be used in non-Asian text. We suggest "Ruby annotation is uncommon in languages such as ". (Note that the term Ruby derives from *English* typesetting practise.) (Note also that you actually include an example of Ruby used with English a little further down the page.) ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thank you. We have adopted your suggestion. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 31: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175403.6DBEC4EFAA@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1402) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 21 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Examples Comment: "rp is used to ensure that pronunciation information shown through Ruby text is displayed by user agents that do not support Ruby annotation." This is misleading. The ruby text is always shown - adding rp doesn't do anything other than make it clearer, for non-ruby enabled user agents, that the ruby text is ruby text and not a typo. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with your suggestions. We have clarified the purpose of the rp element. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 32: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175430.8BA394EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1403) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 22 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Resources Comment: There are resources dedicated to Ruby on the i18n subsite. We are not sure why you don't link to them. eg. see links from http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/markup#ruby . ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have added the suggested link to the resources for H62. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 33: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175452.03DC24EFAA@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1404) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 23 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H62, Tests Comment: "the rp element is used to provide pronunciation information for user agents that do not support Ruby annotations" This is misleading. It should say something like "the rp element is used for user agents that do not support Ruby annotations to indicate that text in rt elements provides pronunciation information" ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have adopted your clarification of the purpose of the rp element.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:43:05 UTC