unmaintained banner #93
Conversation
| and point to the section you are commenting on using a URL for the dated version of the document. | ||
| </p> | ||
|
|
||
| Many of the materials in this document are stale and out of date; the W3C is maintaining this version solely as a historical reference. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure that's true. I think you need to consider the wording more carefully, rather than just copy the wording of another document.
This should clarify why/where the information is 'stale' but also indicate how the document can be used with care for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's difficult question... Some part of concepts and discussions during simple-ruby are transferred into draft on ruby for JLreq-d (only in Japanese for now, basically copied and slightly updated from PDF in simple-ruby repository; also refer difference from JLReq to JLreq-d), and part of important aspect of this document as "simple" processing - by means of quicker and (heavy) iteration less processing of ruby - are kept and omitting rarely used features (e.g. double sided ruby). Of course, double sided ruby is written in simple-ruby as one section, and dropping double sided ruby from JLreq-d could be counted as one of 'out of date'.
Main concept of this simple-ruby would be proposing two level processing, which might not be suitable for 'language requirement' document since it's for processing but not required feature to enable language, and also there are ongoing potential change about processing following development/advancing real world implementation.
So, something like? :
This document captures discussions at intermediate point on classification over features of Ruby from usage point of view, and part of the materials in this document are stale and does not reflect continuous discussions of the Japanese layout task force; ....
- specifically mention about which intermediate point?
- usage and difficulty point of view? but difficulty is mostly judged by automatic processing v.s. manual tuning by book editors.
- cannot include pointer to continuous discussions (at JLreq-d) in English at this point?? (just point README?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@r12a @kidayasuo if possible, could you kindly look into this text?
| </p> | ||
|
|
||
| Many of the materials in this document are stale and out of date; the W3C is maintaining this version solely as a historical reference. | ||
| This document was originally produced as a joint publication between the W3C and the Unicode Consortium. In 2016, Unicode withdrew publication as a Unicode Technical Report. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. This section should be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quite sorry, I'm not sure why I failed to remove this line...
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#positioning_of_jukugoruby">Positioning of Jukugo-ruby</a> | ||
| ) in the <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/">Requirements for Japanese Text Layout</a> Working Group Note. | ||
| <br> | ||
| In 2024, work has been transferred to the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/jlreq-d/">Requirements for Japanese Digital Text Layout</a> (jlreq-d) document |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes it sound as if you can go and find the information in JLReq-D, but you can't - there's no document to point to. I think this should say that "In 2024 a decision was made to incorporate this information into the forthcoming Requirements for ..." (The lack of JLReq-D text also makes me dubious about fully deprecating this Simple Ruby document at this time. It seems that alternative text in JLReq-D is still a long way off, and that in the meantime the information in this document is still useful, if used correctly.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really agree that fully deprecating this simple-ruby at this time is not a good way, but it is decided by TF chair and original writer, and agreed by whole TF, which I cannot do anything about the decision...
as similar to one in https://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml/#sotd
Preview | Diff