- From: Shervin Afshar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:51:56 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
@behnam, I'm absolutely against this change as previously explained. Let me elaborate: * As we all probably know very well, "Arabic" is a language as well as a writing system. "Arabic" language uses "Arabic" writing system (aka "Abjadic Arabic", "أبجدية عربية"). So do Azeri, Baluchi, Kashmiri, Kurdish, Pashto, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Uighur, Urdu, and others; * We stated this very very very clearly that ALReq is not about "Arabic language". It's about layouting text for Arabic writing system; * "script" is not a synonym for "writing system". "script" is a subset of a writing system (see Coulmas, Florian. 2003. *Writing systems. An introduction*. Cambridge University Press. pg. 35). **Questions:** * What is the rationale of this proposal? @r12a, do you care to elaborate? * Why "script"? No other of the LReq documents use "script" in their title. [JLReq](https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-jlreq-20120403) uses "text", [Chinese](https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-clreq-20150730/) uses "text", Indic and Ethiopic are just plain "Indic Layout Requirements" and "Ethiopic Layout Requirements". **Bottomline:** At the moment with existing information, this change seems to me as controversial, arbitrary, and with minor actual benefit to the quality of the document. If I'm persuaded of the change and there is a consensus that our current title is sub-optimal or misleading, then we can follow JLReq or CLReq example and call it "Requirements for Arabic Text Layout". -- GitHub Notification of comment by shervinafshar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/88#issuecomment-273245053 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:52:03 UTC