RE: [css-ruby] Proposal to publish new WD

Deciding what to do about HTML5 is certainly one of the most urgent things to address as we go forward with the spec.  With this publication I simply want to produce a WD that will provide a starting point for those and other discussions. I also keep coming across people who don't realise that there is an editor's copy of the spec, and are working from the CR, not realising that there's more work to be done, and so I think that moving it officially out of CR is a good idea too.

RI

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

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 18:24
> To: www-style@w3.org; Richard Ishida
> Subject: Re: [css-ruby] Proposal to publish new WD
> Importance: High
> 
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:30:24 +0100, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
> wrote:
> > I'd like to publish the version of the CSS3 Ruby Module at
> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ruby/ as a new WD.  This will take the ruby
> > module out of CR and revert it to a Working Draft.
> >
> > Before publishing I'd like to apply all change marks in the editor's
> > version of the document, *with the exception of* those in Section 4.1,
> > so I'd like the Working Group to comment on whether those proposed
> > changes are controversial.  They are essentially editorial in nature,
> > but note, in particular, that I have replaced most references to JIS
> > X-4051 with references to Requirements for Japanese Text Layout
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/).
> >
> > I expect all editorial notes and change marks in section 4.1 to remain.
> >
> > I'd like to ask the Working Group to take a decision to publish the new
> > version.
> 
> Since most user agents are now implementing HTML5. Shouldn't we align the
> Ruby Module with that? The editorial changes are probably an improvement,
> but the draft still does not really reflect the status quo. E.g. sequences
> of ruby text / ruby base are not covered.
> 
> Having said that, taking it out of CR makes sense.
> 
> 
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:43:00 UTC