RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Hi Richard, all,

The text "or its succesor" has been added. See:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#langinfo-definition



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.

Thanks,
-yves




-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:54 AM
To: 'Felix Sasaki'
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis


Personal comment:

This markup MUST use values that conform to [RFC 4646]. " should say *... or its successor* !  So I think we've addressed only half
of the comment.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:43
> To: ishida@w3.org
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
> 
> Hello i18n core,
> 
> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for our discussion 
> .
> 
> Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement it like 
> the reference at 
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#l
> anginfo-implementation
> .
> 
> 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,
> 
> Felix
> ishida@w3.org wrote:
> > Comment from the i18n review of:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
> > 
> > Comment 2
> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> > Editorial/substantive: S
> > Owner: RI
> > 
> > Location in reviewed document:
> > 6.7.1
> > 
> > Comment: 
> > We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.
> > 
> > 
> > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis 
> is expected to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way 
> for RFC 3066ter).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 18:59:23 UTC