- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:08:46 -0600
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Hi Felix, > One information is still missing: What issues are potential > substantive issues? Yves, you had sent a mail about that to > Philippe, could you look for that, forward it and extract > the issue numbers (again). I can't forward the email I sent because I don't have it anymore. But I can get the list of the issues, here they are (form the less likely substantive to the more likely): http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3640 Change: Clarify inheritance aspect for Terminology http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466 Change: Move conformance text for Ruby and Directionality to Informative sections http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3459 Change: Allow ITS markup inside ITS markup http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467 Change: rubyText attribute becomes an element http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3612 Change: Re-instate the term attribute with "yes|no" value http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3464 Change: Addition of termInfoPointer I do still have Philippe's answer email. And it was: "Looking at the changes, I agree with you that none of these changes would gain much by going through a second last call. No new concept was introduced." Since that time we had one more change: the removal of the redundant rbPointer attribute in the rubyRule element. I don't think it would qualify as a substantive change because it was clearly a bug-fix/clarification and no processing result or expectation has changed with that removal. Cheers, -yves
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2006 16:08:56 UTC