Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

If we're adding "unintelligible" I'd like my "conformance" added too.

Phil.






From:   Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
To:     public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, 
Date:   11/12/2012 15:43
Subject:        Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)



Hi Arle, all,

sure. But there is another aspect of the change, see the bottom of

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0004.html


"Is there some planned or existing tools support for this new value? 
What  do other implementors think about the proposal?"

This is independent of the "substantive versus editoral change" 
discussion, but still important IMO.

Best,

Felix

Am 11.12.12 15:49, schrieb Arle Lommel:
> I would agree with Jirka in this case. No existing implementation would 
be affected by this, as far as I can tell. But we can discuss it.
>
> -Arle
>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> is this really case which needs additional LC? Adding new value in a
>> rather long enumeration is backward compatible with existing ITS markup
>> and seems as a quite minor change for me.
>




************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************