- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
- To: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
John C Klensin wrote: > Suggestions, which I hope are consistent with "late date and the > informative nature...": I'm sorry but it's actually now *after* the end of LC period. The spec needs to go forward. Unless there's a really important reason to hold up the spec to more clearly explain background material that is crucial to explaining the features detailed in the spec, we need to stop enhancing the text of informative sections. The original example of diacritics is *not* an attempt to explain diacritics in detail but only serves to indicate that the mapping of characters to glyphs is not always a simple one-to-one mapping. I completely agree that handling diacritics and marks is a complicated subject but this is not the point at which to embark on adding a more comprehensive explanation of the handling of diacritics and marks across scripts. The spec needs to move forward. I definitely agree with you that the spec would benefit from a richer explanation of these issues. But not for this level, we should focus on improving the prose in the next level. Regards, John Daggett
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 13:24:19 UTC