Re: Comments on Charmod PR publications

Hello Bjoern,

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

Your comments below were discussed by the I18N WG in detail.
This is the formal response from the WG.

[This response is similar to, but not identical to,
my personal initial response at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Nov/0008.html.]

At 18:24 04/11/23, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
 >
 >Dear Internationalization Working Group,
 >
 >  It seems that the latest versions of http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ and
 >http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/ have been published in violation
 >with the current operative W3C Process document. The Process document
 >requires that all comments have been addressed by the Working Group, but
 >for example
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Apr/0020.html

We are very sorry we overlooked this mail and appologize. We have looked
at it carefully, and will respond to it separately.

 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Aug/0000.html

We are very sorry we overlooked this mail and appologize.
This looks like a question, but was submitted as a comment.
To answer the question, you did not miss anything. The topic
is in principle not outside of the scope of the Character Model,
but we have decided not to address it in this version.

We have noted this comment on
http://www.w3.org/International/2005/charmod-edit/comments.html.

 >have not been addressed at all. This also applies to some follow-up
 >comments such as
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Oct/0048.html

The comment to which this was a follow-up was discussed with the W3C
Director in quite some detail. The Director supported our view that
Section 4.5, once in its new form, would not be confusing.

 >which has not been addressed either. I further note that the removal of
 >the entire section 7 of the Charmod LC document clearly invalidates my
 >review of the document as I've indicated in
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Apr/0007.html
 >
 >and the removal is thus a substantive change which requires that the
 >document is returned to the Working Group for further work (which would
 >require publication of another LC WD to proceed).

There was obviously no way we could have addressed a comment that
went to a totally different group. The question of whether splitting
out section 7 into a separate document requires another last call or
not was discussed with experts on W3C Process, and the conclusion
was that no additional last call was required.

[Just as an aside, we do not understand why you are claiming that
your review is invalidated, in particular if your claim should be
based on material rather than formal arguments.]

 >It further seems that
 >this change is not properly documented, the changes document states
 >something to this effect, but the note is marked up with <del> implying
 >that the LC document had this note but it did not.
 >
 >Last but not least it seems that some promised edits have not actually
 >been made, e.g. in
 >
 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Oct/0040.html
 >
 >I've been told that the prose text for C076 will be changed to discuss
 >something but character encodings but it still mentions "iso-8859-1"
 >which still does not make sense to me.

We have promised to use "coded character set" instead  of "character
encoding", and we have kept our promise.

The explanatory language indeed still mentions "iso-8859-1". This is
because the most frequent abuse of this kind is (or hopefully, was)
to create a font where the glyphs used to render the characters in
the high half of iso-8859-1 were replaced by glyphs from another
script (e.g. Cyrillic or Thai), and a corresponding Web page was
labeled as being in iso-8859-1 with an instruction for the reader
to install the specil font.

 >There is little that can be done about some of these issues (and there
 >are actually more but they are of less concern to me), but I want my
 >comments formally addressed by the Working Group and I thus hereby re-
 >submit all unaddressed comments (including but not limited to those
 >I've mentioned, I can't check them all right now).

We have addressed or are going to address all comments we are concious of.
Where suggestions have been made as part of a discussion on an original
comment, we understand this discussion to be part of the original
comment, and to be addressed formally by the Director's decision
on that comment (the discussion for such a decision usually includes
a discusson of arguments brought up in follow-up discussion).


Regards,    Martin.

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 13:12:04 UTC