Re: [PLS1.0] i18n comment: Smyth

Issue R103-32

Proposed Classification: Clarification / Typo / Editorial 

Resolution: Reject 

We can clarify the Section 5.4 [1] by splitting the example in two
parts. First the seed/cede examples and then the Smyth/Smith. We believe
that PLS is most valuable for addressing the difficult cases that arise
in human speech. We see a value to maintaining complex examples to
illustrate how an author might address these complex cases. 

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution,
whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish
to register an objection. 


Paolo Baggia, editor PLS spec.

From: <> 
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:52:08 +0000
Message-Id: <> 

Comment from the i18n review of:

Comment 32
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:

I think the Smyth example just confuses things at the beginning of the
section and in the example. It is an example of something that is both a
homograph and homophone at the same time - for which there appears to be
no good solution. I would just add a reference to the fact that such
things exist after the example in 5.4, and perhaps use one of the
examples in 5.3 rather than the Smyth one.

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to <> Thank you<>

Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 14:24:42 UTC