W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

Some I18N last call comments

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:26:03 +0900
Message-Id: <199910040726.QAA20524@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
[i18n IG is BCC'd because w3c-wai-au@w3.org is public]

The guidelines document is extremely general, it doesn't
look like there are any issues.

I found some issues in the accompagning techniques document:


Under Checkpoint 3.1:
In Japanese, prompt the author for kana text that can be used
as a ruby for unusual or complex kanji.

This should be generalized. The problem of pronouncing unusual/rare
ideographic characters also exists in Chinese, Koreane (and Vietnamese).
In Japanese in particular (and to a very limited extent in the
other languages), it should be "kanji or kanji combinations".
A reading in a combination can be difficult even if reading
the single components is easy, and vice-versa. Ruby probably
should be mentionned only as one potential technique.
"complex" should be removed, because there is no really significant
correlation between the complexity of a character (e.g. in terms
of numbers of strokes) and the reading difficulty, unless
this is specifically mentionned to care about people with reduced
vision (in which case this should probably be mentionned explicitly).

Under Checkpoint 4.1:
Where there is a change in the character set (or subset) used,
prompt the author to identify whether there has been a change
in language 

Change "character set (or subset)" to "script". The term
'character set' is confusing, and in any of it's current
usages, not really what you want to say.

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 03:26:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:28:22 UTC