RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 reference in tests

Thank you.  The i18n Core WG is satisfied wrt this comment.

RI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: 16 November 2007 14:59
> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 reference in tests
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
>  Sent: 04 November 2007 05:09
> ...
>  Please review our resolutions for the following comments, 
> and reply to  us by 19 November 2007 at 
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether  you are 
> satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived.
> ...
>  WCAG 2.0 Editor's Draft of May-October 2007 at  
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/
>  
> ...
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Comment 3: RFC 4646 and BCP 47
> > Source: 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 7Jun/0024.html
> > (Issue ID: 1961)
> > ----------------------------
> > Original Comment:
> > ----------------------------
> > 
> > > 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 This specification has now been superceded by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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =================================
> > > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > > Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43
> > > To: Richard Ishida
> > > Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> > > Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April
> > > 2006 (2 of 2)
> > 
> > > Comment 17:
> > 
> > > ----------------------------
> > > Response from Working Group:
> > > ----------------------------
> > >
> > > We have updated the reference to refer to the updated RFC 4646.
> > 
> > 
> > Now that things have settled down, the best strategy is to 
> replace all 
> > links to RFC 4646 with links to BCP 47. RFC 4646 will be replaced 
> > fairly soon with another RFC, but BCP 47 will continue to 
> refer to the 
> > latest relevant RFC.
> > The link is:
> > 
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt
> > 
> > You can still use the same title as the link text.
> > 
> > A similar comment was raised at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 7Jun/0029.html
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Again, we suggest you now change "conforms to  RFC 4646: 
> Tags for the 
> > identification of languages  or its successor [LC-1391]" to 
> "conforms 
> > to BCP 47: Tags for the Identification of Languages"
> > 
>  ---------------------------------------------
>  Response from Working Group:
>  ---------------------------------------------
>  
>  Thank you for the updated references. We have included them  
> in an updated draft.
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 18:00:22 UTC