Re: Multilingual jlreq installed !

Not sure why this email repeats what was in GH. Let's please not 
continue this thread, but instead work vai the Github issues. If anyone 
responds to anything here via email, we'll be fracturing the threads, 
and giving ourselves a headache.

ri

On 13/05/2019 18:12, Atsushi Shimono (W3C Team) wrote:
>    hi Richard, all,
> 
>    Sorry to bother you on many points,,, I've just finished going 
> through over whole text (just skim through...).
> 
> On 2019/05/10 18:56, r12a wrote:
>> Atsushi, please check for any errors, as discussed.
>>
>> Unless someone spots any mistakes i made (quite possible) that need to 
>> be fixed first, this should mean that we can now start processing the 
>> errata and making edits.
> 
>    I've put one issue for editorial points, and put several issues as 
> errata or questions.
> 
> editorial points (following lines are just copy from initial comment of 
> https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/52)
> 
> - Editors: 'Hiroyuki Chiba' is in both 1st and 2nd for before, marked as 
> 2nd for after
> - Editors: 'Tatsuo Kobayashi' is as 'JustSystems' for 1st and 'Invited 
> Expert' for 2nd for before, in both 1st and 2nd as 'JustSystems' for after
> - Editors: 'Felix Sasaki' is as 'University of Applied Sciences Potsdam' 
> for 1st and 'DFKI GmbH' for 2nd for before, in both 1st and 2nd as 'DFKI 
> GmbH' for after (Kanji name 'Felix 佐々木' is ok to be dropped?)
> - [section 
> A.28](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#warichu-opening-brackets-cl-28-cl-28) 
> title has right angle bracket at the first character of Japanese text 
> 'Warichu opening brackets (cl-28) >割注始め括弧類（cl-28）'
> - [section 2.2.4 note 1](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#n7), [section 
> 2.2.5(a) note 1](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-10), [section 3.2.5 
> note 1](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-99) : link in English text 
> does not have section mark
> - [section 2.6.3(a)](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#id107), [section 
> 3.1.3(a) note 1](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-53), [section 
> 3.1.3(b)](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#id152) text (and many more??) : 
> has term reference link with 'termref2nd' not 'termref' (both English 
> and Japanese)
> - [section 
> 3.3.5](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#positioning-of-mono-ruby-with-respect-to-base-characters) 
> paragraph 2: Japanese text is included into figure part
> - [section 
> 3.3.7](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#positioning-of-jukugo-ruby-with-respect-to-base-characters) 
> paragraph 2, section 3.3.7 [notes 
> 2](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-122) and 
> [3](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-123), [section 3.4.2 note 
> 2](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#h-note-133): a link to appendix in 
> English text are linked with section mark
> - [Appendix F.4 paragraph 4](https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/#en-app6_5) 
> does not have its-locale-filter-list attribute
> 
> 
> issues as errata or questions
> 
> - [Inconsistency between English and Japanese version in section 4.4.2 
> note 1 and 2](https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/53)
> - [English text for '通用名称' in Appendix A 
> tables](https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/54)
> - [Some character samples in Appendix A tables are in full-width 
> character](https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/55)
> - ['Appendix G' is shown as bare text in section 4.1.1 note 
> 7](https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/56)
> 
> 
>    Also in discussion, let me put one point for discussion item of next 
> F2F (as wrote before, I'll
> try to make summary before F2F...); 
> https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/52#issuecomment-491876397
>    Short summary: We have previous two periods of JLReq (1st ed. and 2nd 
> ed.) and two changed their
> affiliation in between. Do we list two for these or just drop all for 
> former editors?
> 
>> Richard
>    I have one (seems stupid) question. Is it ok to list one in both 
> 'Editor' and 'Former editors'?
> (I think we have such case in this document...)
> 
> 
>> PS: Anticipating upcoming edits, let's try to keep editorial commits 
>> related to fixes of bugs introduced by the conversion process separate 
>> from commits related to errata, etc. It will help keep the history of 
>> changes more readable.
> 
>    Sure. (not yet replying to previous thread,,, but reading...)
>

Received on Monday, 13 May 2019 17:41:29 UTC