- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:49:56 -0400
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period of a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec. On Mar/17/2011 7:21 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > (accidentally hit reply instead of reply all, so sending again) > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Phillips, Addison<addison@lab126.com> wrote: >> Hello Webapps WG, >> >> (these are personal comments) >> >> I happened to be referring to the Widget spec this morning and noticed a few minor items that I feel should be brought to your attention. >> >> 1. Section 5.3 (Zip Relative Paths). The ABNF defines "language-range". I think this is not desirable. Language ranges are input to the matching algorithm (i.e. the user's request). You don't really want paths like "locale/de-*-1901". You want concrete paths here and "*" has no business in a path. Ideally you would reference the "Language-Tag" production in BCP 47 (RFC 5646). However, since it is a large production and you don't probably want to directly incorporate it, you could incorporate the "obs-language-tag" production in the same document instead. You should still say that language tags used in paths "must" be valid language tags according to the more formal production. >> > Valid point. I don't think anyone will complain if we change this. > >> 2. Section 5.3. The same production corresponds to BCP 47 (RFC 4647) "extended-language-range", although it only allows the tags to use lowercase letters. I really feel that mixed case is not that difficult to support and that it will save many developers from inexplicable silent failures. >> > This is true... however, most engines implemented the case sensitive > requirement (implementers had concerns about Unicode case > comparisons)). I think it might be hard to fix this one without > breaking a bunch of runtimes and maybe content.... need to think about > it. > >> 3. There is no mention of case sensitivity of filenames anywhere that I can find. You should define if filenames are case sensitive (or not) and what is meant by "case sensitive" if it is supported (just ASCII case? Unicode default case mapping?) >> > Search for "case-sensitively" or "case-sensitive" instead. The > case-sensitive requirement on files comes a fair bit. > >
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:52:00 UTC