[PLS1.0] i18n comment: Smyth

Comment from the i18n review of:

Comment 32
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0603-pls10/
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 ofsomething 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 tothe 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.

Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 17:52:15 UTC