RE: ISSUE-172: restore-rb- Chairs Solicit Proposals

> We feel that we will be in a position to present our WG recommendation with a delay of an additional two weeks, say by 27 January. Would this be acceptable to the HTML WG?

The Call for Change proposals for ISSUE-172 closed on January 7.  Since at least one change proposal was provided [1], the Chairs have issued a Call for Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals which closes on Feb 11 [2].  Since this closing date is well after your suggested date of Jan 27 I expect this meets your requirement for more time.

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IncludeRB 
[2]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0044.html 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@lab126.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:39 AM
To: Ian Hickson; Paul Cotton
Cc: public-html@w3.org; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> (eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp); public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-172: restore-rb- Chairs Solicit Proposals

Dear HTML-WG,

I am writing on behalf of the I18N WG to request more time to respond to this issue. In our teleconference today [1] we realized that we are not yet completely ready to respond. We have developed a wiki page [2] with various alternatives and are reaching out to the community in various ways to solicit additional feedback. We have been in contact with Ian. We feel that this issue can be resolved.

Our concern about <rb> mainly revolves around the best way to handle complex ruby. It is possible that, as Ian has suggested, nested <ruby> elements will be a sufficient mechanism for this. There is only one unsatisfied case for simple ruby with the current document, which may be a minor case. But complex ruby has several proposed approaches, some of which feature <rb>. We would like to close on our recommendations to your WG so that this issue can be marked resolved. We feel that we will be in a position to present our WG recommendation with a delay of an additional two weeks, say by 27 January. Would this be acceptable to the HTML WG?

Regards (for I18N),

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/11-i18n-minutes.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Rb 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m- 
> mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> (eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp); Phillips, Addison
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-172: restore-rb- Chairs Solicit Proposals
> 
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Paul Cotton wrote:
> >
> > 'restore <rb> as an optional element'
> >
> > Per the decision policy, at this time the chairs would like to 
> > solicit
> volunteers to write Change Proposals for ISSUE-172:
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/172

> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalat

> > io
> > n
> >
> > If no Change Proposals are written by January 7th, 2012 this issue 
> > will be
> closed without prejudice.
> >
> > Issue status link:
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-172

> 
> This is still premature. I'm currently waiting for information from 
> Richard Ishida and the i18n group regarding the discussion we had at TPAC.
> 
> If every time I wait for feedback this bug is going to be escalated, 
> this is going to make working with other groups an incredibly frustrating experience.
> 
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 01:07:23 UTC