- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:54:53 -0400
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, Alistair Miles <alimanfoo@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>,Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
At 06:49 PM 7/13/2009 +0100, Sean Bechhofer wrote: >On 10 Jul 2009, at 12:23, Alistair Miles wrote: > >>On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:35:37PM -0400, Thomas Baker wrote: >>>Dear all, >>> >>>We discussed the I18N Core comment (below) on today's telecon >>>[1] and resolved the following: >>> >>> RESOLUTION: We (a) modify the example(s) in 6.5.4 to be >>> syntactically conformant to BCP 47 and (b) offer to add a phrase >>> such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data >>> unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47" >>> contingent on Alistair and Sean's agreeing >> >>I'm happy with this. > >I'm also happy with this. OK, so we didn't explicitly assign the action to reply to the I18N Core Working Group with the proposal in (b) -- or with the alternative language in Antoine's mail [1]. I think Antoine's suggested text is consistent with the discussion at the telecon and I would be quite happy with the editor(s) using their discretion to adopt ether version in a proposal to the I18N Core Working Group. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jul/0013.html We really can't expect to request transition out of Proposed Rec before we have replied to the I18N Core Working Group and attempt to satisfy them.
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 13:55:30 UTC