- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:58:31 +0200
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Am 09.05.13 11:02, schrieb Dave Lewis: > Hi Norbert, > Thanks for getting back to us on that. I'll make sure that wording > change goes in. Thanks, Dave and Norbert, done. - Felix > We'd also spotted the schema reference so that is being fixed now also. > > kind regards, > Dave > > On 09/05/2013 04:19, Norbert Lindenberg wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >> This is essentially what I asked for, so I'm satisfied. >> >> Two nits though: >> - "as time of writing" should probably be "at the time of writing". >> - There's still a reference to ruby in the Schematron schema in >> appendix D. >> >> Norbert >> >> >> On May 7, 2013, at 17:33 , Dave Lewis wrote: >> >>> Hi Norbert, >>> Thanks you for you input on the Ruby topic. This is to confirm that >>> we have now removed the Ruby section from the ITS2.0 editors draft >>> and included an appendix H stating: >>> >>> "H. Ruby and ITS 2.0 (Non-Normative) >>> >>> ITS 1.0 provided the Ruby data category. ITS 2.0 does not provide >>> ruby since as time of writing, a stable model for ruby was not >>> available. There are ongoing discussions about the ruby model in >>> HTML5. Once these discussions are settled, in a subsequent version >>> of ITS, the ruby data category may be re-introduced." >>> >>> Please inidicate if you are satisfied with the response. If we don't >>> hear from you within two week we will take it you are satisfied. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> On 09/04/2013 18:42, Felix Sasaki wrote: >>>> Thank you, Norbert. We are planning to publish a "hearth beat" >>>> working draft on Thursday. I then would propose that we remove the >>>> section as you suggested, but mention that this is something that >>>> we want to get feedback about before leaving last call. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 09.04.13 18:53, schrieb Norbert Lindenberg: >>>>> I still think this section should be removed entirely, since it >>>>> adds no value to the standard in its current form. It might be >>>>> useful to explain in an appendix why it's been removed, and that >>>>> it may reappear in a later version. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:52 , Felix Sasaki wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi i18n colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> this issue >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/87 >>>>>> "whitespace change in ruby example" is done, see >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-ruby-implementation-1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was wondering how to move forward with this issue >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/91 >>>>>> "parts of the ruby section should be removed" >>>>>> >>>>>> We had various discussions about this in the i18n WG. From these >>>>>> I see two options: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) remove the section completely >>>>>> 2) keep the section but have it *mostly* (see below) empty, >>>>>> saying "the ruby model in HTML5 is in flux. The ruby section may >>>>>> be updated in a subsequent version of ITS". >>>>>> >>>>>> The original comment >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/91 >>>>>> said that the local part of the ruby section should be removed. >>>>>> But with that, all that would be left is this sentence in the >>>>>> "definition" section: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Ruby data category is used for a run of text that is >>>>>> associated with another run of text, referred to as the base >>>>>> text. Ruby text is used to provide a short annotation of the >>>>>> associated base text. It is most often used to provide a reading >>>>>> (pronunciation) guide." >>>>>> >>>>>> We could keep that sentence also as part of resolution aproach 2). >>>>>> >>>>>> The global ruby section >>>>>> is like local ruby specific to XHTML, see the names of the >>>>>> "pointer" attributes at >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#ruby-global >>>>>> >>>>>> so it might be rather confusing to keep the global approach. >>>>>> Besides, since ITS1, it seems there has been nobody implementing >>>>>> ruby globally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Felix >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 14:59:01 UTC