Right but in that case I do not see material issues with the English document being positioned as a translation of the Japanese original (following the fact that it really is). Procedural requirements is the only reason I could think of. Actually, being a translation and being authoritative would be two separate issues. I do not see much benefits of changing the status quo. - kida > 2019/05/02 12:25、Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>のメール: > > > >> On May 2, 2019, at 12:06, Yasuo Kida <kida@mac.com <mailto:kida@mac.com>> wrote: >> >>> I do think it is a bit weird for the English version to be authoritative, given the authors and the subject matter are Japanese. I would have thought to make the native language authoritative and the English translation be the reference. >> >> >> ah, it is an interesting point. It is just my guess but W3C procedures mandate official documents to be English? In reality if there are conflicts between two documents probably almost always the one in Japanese is correct as it is the original work. > > I think it's more related to the fact that the goal of JLReq is to have information about Japanese typesetting available to those who do not speak Japanese. The desired outcome is a document in English. > > —Florian
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 03:43:38 UTC