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

> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 19:18
> 
> On 12/01/2010 12:30 PM, Richard Ishida wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > 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've reviewed the changes, and I agree with all of them except the ones
> in 4.1. I would like to see the following changes before publication:
>   - all of the suggested changes outside of 4.1 incorporated into
>     the text
>   - the editorial changes to the note about traditional Chinese
>     in 4.1 incorporated into the text

There are two notes.  I think you mean this text?

"Tone marks are spacing characters that occur in memory at the end of the ruby text for each base character. They are usually displayed in a separate column to the right of the bopomofo characters, and the height of the tone mark depends on the number of characters in the syllable. One tone mark, however, is placed above the bopomofo, not to the right of it."


>   - all other changes in 4.1 converted to "Issue" comments, if
>     they are kept

I'm trying to think of an easy way to do that.  Since the change marks themselves would indicate that text is not final, would it be sufficient to add a line at the top of 4.1 that says:

"Issue: the change marks in this section indicate proposed changes that still need further discussion." 

RI

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 14:27:15 UTC