RE: XHTML2 review - Please check

Some comments on the resulting version...
A few light comments:

#5 and #46 should reference C020 in CharModFun: http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod1#sec-EncodingIdent

#8: or "sequence of Basic Latin digit characters" (listing the code point range U+0030 through U+0039 along with the '0' and '9'). XML Schema, btw, has this for "integer" (and similar terminology for "decimal" and other flavors):

integer has a lexical representation consisting of a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39)...

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#integer

#38 seems to match my additional suggestion from this morning's email thread. Shouldn't there be a pre-defined <meta> property for content language? I think that could make #38 more concrete if phrased that way.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-i18n-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-i18n-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: 2005年1月27日 13:00
> To: 'Francois Yergeau'
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; 'i18n IG'
> Subject: RE: XHTML2 review - Please check
> 
> 
> 
> Francois said:
> 
> > Comment 9: this says "...has implications for XML 
> > Modularization spec..."  I suppose this should *XHTML*, not XML.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Comment 35: we discussed this last time and were OK with the 
> > double duty hreflang now does.  I think this comment should 
> > be deleted.
> 
> I didn't come away with that understanding. I remember, it was 
> very difficult to hear you during that call for some reason. 
> Let's discuss again, although it would also be good to get 
> clarity from HTML folks whether it is intended to go one way or 
> the other or both.  My impression from talking with Steven is 
> that they intend it only to be used for HTTP purposes, and I 
> suspect the document is just badly written.
> 
> > 
> > Comment 42: there is a leftover editor's note.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > 
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 21:19:19 UTC