- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:16:35 -0000
- To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
With additional clarity elsewhere in the text and the small edit here, I'd say this is Fixed. RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/blog/ http://rishida.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ishida@w3.org > Sent: 07 March 2008 11:33 > To: public-i18n-core@w3.org > Subject: [UAX29] i18n comment 6: Indic scripts or Tamil? > > > Comment from the i18n review of: > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-12.html > > Comment 6 > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0801-uax29/ > Editorial/substantive: E/S? > Tracked by: RI > > Location in reviewed document: > > 3 [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29- > 12.html#Grapheme_Cluster_Boundaries] > > Comment: > 'Indic scripts such as Tamil' > is ambiguous. > > > We were expecting to read something like 'Indic scripts, such as the Tamil > we saw earlier' or 'most Indic scripts'. > > > On the other hand, this may be intentional because the XDGCs are intended > to only address the needs of a simpler Indic script like Tamil that > doesn't generally use conjunct forms (so the statement should say > something more like "the set of Indic scripts that are like Tamil"). > > > If this latter interpretation is true, a. there needs to be a clearer > statement about the relevance of XDGCs to Indic and South-East Asian > scripts in general, and b. we think the document is definitely setting its > sights too low. > >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 14:13:20 UTC