W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:31:13 -0800
Message-ID: <4D472A21.5060607@inkedblade.net>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 01/31/2011 12:18 PM, Richard Ishida wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 01:22, fantasai wrote:
>> On 12/02/2010 09:26 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>>>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>>>> Sent: 01 December 2010 19:18
> ...
>>>> 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
> I'm assuming that I need to clear that with other members of the WG too?

The other changes are minor/editorial, so no, I don't think you need WG
approval to make them. (If they were substantive comments, and the draft
was stabilizing for CR, then WG approval would be needed.)

>>>> - 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 ..."
>> No, I mean the changes in the paragraph above that literally includes the
>> words "traditional Chinese". :)
> I'm not at all clear which text you are talking about. Could you paste
> into a mailnote for me?

# Note the This value is provided for the special case of traditional Chinese
# as used especially in Taiwan: ruby (made of bopomofo glyphs) in that context
# can appears vertically along the right side of the base glyph, as if the
# text were in vertical layout, but the bases themselves are rendered on a
# horizontal line, since the actual layout is horizontal whether the layout of
# the base characters is vertical or horizontal.

The changes you made to this paragraph (and the two notes after it) are
primarily editorial and clarifying, so I don't think they need WG approval.

Keeping these editorial comments as diffs takes away the focus on things
that actually need people's attention. This is why I want you to fold them
into the text.

>>>> - all other changes in 4.1 converted to "Issue" comments, if they are kept
> I have put a big disclaimer at the start of 4.1 to say that these are only proposals, and there are other issue notes besides.
> I believe that that should be sufficient and that leaving the proposed changes in the text will make it easier for people to
> understand the proposed changes.
> I'd like to get this published soon, so let's put our discussion of how to handle bopomofo ruby on hold until we have done so.

Certainly. I'm only commenting on how the issues are presented. None of our
Working Drafts use diff markings for issues: the spec is either changed or
it isn't, and where something is not fully worked out the issues are
explained in issue comments.

Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 21:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:55 UTC