- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:08:35 -0400
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Makoto Kato <m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp>, 劉慶 <ryukeikun@gmail.com>
On 07/27/2016 10:49 AM, Phillips, Addison wrote: > Martin mentioned: > >>>> What do you think about having this information in CLREQ, or maybe in >>>> a separate I18N WG note if WG prefers? That should get wider reviews >>>> then. >>>> >>>> It might also be nice to explicitly mention that authors can/should >>>> add script subtag to pick the other choice than the default. >>> >>> The attachment is the list I'm currently going to submit to our code. >>> Two CLReq editors reviewed this list and think it looks good. >>> >>> Richard: could you review this list as well, and if everything looks fine, could >> you probably consider putting it as an I18N WG note? Editors of CLReq don't >> think this kind of details fit in CLReq. >> >> It seems overkill to create a WG note for a list of about 40 lines. But of course >> if somebody writes the document and Richard is fine with handling the >> publishing overhead, I won't object. > > It does seem like overkill for a WG Note. I don't actually > agree with the editors of CLReq. This might not be part of > the body of CLReq, but it would make a nifty appendix. I agree with making it an appendix to CLREQ. I would format it as a table, however, using <table class="data">. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 20:09:21 UTC