- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:03:44 +0900
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
On 2014/08/28 02:37, Richard Ishida wrote: > Anne was not comfortable with that, but did think that an alternative > suggested by Addison could work. That would be to replace the third > paragraph with: > > "Historically encodings and their specifications (if any) were kept > track of by the IANA Character Sets registry. For the purposes of > specifications using this specification, that registry no longer relevant." > > The i18n WG felt that this last attempt was workable. Please let us know > asap whether we can settle on this wording and move on. I have earlier commented on the use of "were" (past) in a (probably) different version of that text. I continue to think that "were" is factually incorrect and therefore wrong. In addition, "that registry no longer relevant" lacks a predicate. Please add "is". So I propose to change this to something along the lines of: Encodings and their specifications (if any) are also being kept track of by the IANA Character Sets registry. For the purposes of specifications using this specification, that registry is no longer relevant. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 07:04:25 UTC