- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:29:28 -0600
- To: "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
Hello Richard, all This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0018.html for our discussion. Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement it. Please have a look at: http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#introduction Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear from you, we will assume this issue as closed. Regards, -yves The original comments and discussion are here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0018.html > Subject: RE: missing doc ref > > I think that we *should* mention it in the introductory text > somewhere, since it is a document that people are familiar > with, and it ties together the ITS work with initiatives > associated with that document, and shows that this is a > practical outcome of those ideas, which I believe is useful. > (Note, for example, that the DITA folks were working from > that document, rather than from ITS stuff initially.) > > (Which has set me also to thinking that maybe we should refer > to it in the ITS spec, too, for the same reasons - since very > few people are likely to read the Requirements document once > the spec is out.)
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 16:29:43 UTC