W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Triage of HTML "wontfix" items [I18N-ACTION-516]

From: <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:54:37 +0100
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d10a1303-e412-9c21-ded2-4e9922b5d1b3@w3.org>
On 10/06/2016 23:32, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> All:
>
> I reviewed all of the "WONTFIX" bugs filed against HTML in Bugzilla, pursuant to my action item [I18N-ACTION-516]. The link used to search for these is below near my .sig. Most of the items are either marked with our satisfaction in the past or do not appear to be worth further discussion. Of the remainder, there are three categories: (i) items that we probably should discuss; (ii) items that could be resurrected but need additional action on our part; and (iii) one item of historical interest because we are still talking about it (list styles).
>
> Here's what I got:
>
> NEEDS DISCUSSION
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16958 (add support for leap seconds) [I18N-ISSUE-87]
> we probably discussed this before, but best to be sure
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16956 (represent BCE months) [I18N-ISSUE-84]
> dismissed lacking a use case from us: do we care to provide one?

I'm inclined to agree with Hixie that unless we can come up with a use 
case that shows the need, we should drop the previous two.



> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16989 (list style types) [I18N-ISSUE-135]
> probably we do not want to re-open this, but perhaps requesting a health warning about the legacy list types in HTML might be warranted?

the previous item is already a live issue, see
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/341
(i18n tracker: https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/33)



> POTENTIAL INTEREST FOR A FEATURE REQUEST:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16966 (add support for 13th month) [I18N-ISSUE-98]
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16963 (culturally specific week rules) [I18N-ISSUE-94]
> This one I don't agree with HTML. The spec as written is inconsistent with many cultures week definition rules.

i have no objection to raising these as feature requests




> OTHER:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13417 (the q rules discussion started here)

i believe this issue is already subsumed in
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/314

ri
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 16:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 June 2016 16:54:48 UTC