- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:10:29 +0000
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: "public-qt-comments@w3.org" <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
> So a resolution of "later" wouldn't really address our comments if "later" we expect to see changes to how numbers are handled in QT but those aren't really possible to preserve compatibility? Or am I misreading that? > > I18N's concern is that the current number formatting has gaps from current best practices. We'll review the Bugzilla item carefully, with the understanding that it is very "late in the day" for you. Look for a response following our weekly call (Thursday). > > If there is a "next time", though, I would suggest that we coordinate quite early in the process to help ensure that we mutually arrive at the best available solution. > Yes, certainly. These comments should really have been addressed when we finalized the requirements stage, back in 2009 or so... I'm sure you appreciate that any WG is reluctant to add features (however desirable) at CR stage, especially when it's taken 8 years to reach that stage, and especially when it requires coordination between different specs owned by different WGs to deliver those features. Michael Kay Saxonica
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 09:10:56 UTC