Re: 2nd Last Call for the Character Model for the WWW

On Friday 24 May 2002 13:42, you wrote:
> I'm writing to remind you that the Last Call comment period for:
>    Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
>    W3C Working Draft 30 April 2002
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430
> ends on 31 May 2002, and that the I18N WG is looking forward to
> receiving your group's comments.

Misha, Donald and others' may want to comment but my own brief thoughts 
follow.

I've tried to reconcile our original comments [1], your latest spec [2], 
and the disposition of issues [3]. Fortunately, we had few comments and 
most were FYI but I fear I've failed on some of the substantive ones. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2001Feb/0017
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430
[3] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/

For instance, LCC-117 [4] was summarized as, "Section 3.6.2 (Private Use 
Code Points): Disagreement with our approach".  [5] LCI-95's disposition is 
"N - Y S". I presume this means you don't agree with the comment, there's 
no change, the issue is closed, and it was a substantive issue. But I don't 
know if we didn't explain ourselves well, or why you disagreed? So when I 
consider the original text "Specifications MUST NOT provide mechanisms for 
private agreement between parties." [6] I can see was was of concern. When 
I check the latest version I see "Specifications SHOULD NOT provide 
mechanisms for agreement on private use code points between parties and 
MUST NOT require the use of such mechanisms." [7] So that seems to have 
changed -- after a lot of time and confusion on my part?!

[4] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCC-117
[5] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCI-95
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-charmod-20010126/#sec-Encodings
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PrivateUse

Perhaps in issuing another LC we are best keeping the first set of issues 
generally in mind, but not trying to track them... So time is short and 
I've tried to quickly skim the whole document and lingering on those bits 
where I think we commented and only have the following two small comments:

R.B0. Please do not state "All W3C specs must conform." I think you should:
a. state in the STATUS that the intent is that this will be used for W3C 
specifications.
b.  state, "any spec wishing to conform must ..." and how, when, and what 
unforeseen exceptions might be permitted becomes is a matter of W3C policy 
-- perhaps following Ian's suggestion.

R.B1. There's a YYYE for defining "logical order" but I don't see it. (I do 
see "logical selection model" is this the same?)

R.B2. In a couple of places it appears you use an accented i in an example. 
This is hard to see that it is not a normal "i", particularly when 
italicized.

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 17:56:14 UTC