W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2005

[Minutes] CharMod telecon; 2005-01-20

From: Addison Phillips [wM] <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:13:28 -0800
To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <member-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHOEJFJBAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>

*** Mode for channel #i18n is "+"
*** Channel #i18n was created at Thu Jan 20 13:45:06 2005 
<apphillips> zakim, who is here? 
<Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Richard, Martin, Addison_Phillips
<Zakim> On IRC I see apphillips, fyergeau, Zakim, MJDuerst
<apphillips> zakim, Addison is apphillips 
<Zakim> +apphillips; got it
*** r12a (ishida@128.30.52.30) has joined channel #i18n
<apphillips> ------------------------------------------------------------------  
<apphillips> 09:00 Issue LC74e: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (e) [20]  
<apphillips>     - Roberto's Proposal [21], I18N response [22]  
<apphillips>     - Related issues:  
<apphillips>       - Issue 75q (drop XML 1.1 support) [23]  
<apphillips>       - Issue 89b (drop abstract data types) [24]  
<apphillips>       - Issue 89c (drop XML 1.1 support) [25]  
<apphillips>   
<apphillips>  [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74e  
<apphillips>  [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html  
<apphillips>  [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0051.html  
<apphillips>  [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75q  
<apphillips>  [24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89b  
<apphillips>  [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89c 
<apphillips> --- 
<fyergeau> zakim, [ is fyergeau
<Zakim> +fyergeau; got it
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> AI: all read requirements draft. Anyone? 
<apphillips> No one. 
<apphillips> (except Martin) 
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> IRI is nearing completion 
<apphillips> far fewer edits in last go-around with RFC editor 
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> Note from Kuro. 
<r12a> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/i18n-editor/
<MJDuerst> http://www.w3.org/mid/20050110164706.7F1C64EF92@homer.w3.org
<apphillips> [[  
<apphillips>   
<apphillips> Here's the part of Char Model that I felt a little bit misleading.  
<apphillips> In  
<apphillips> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefProcModel  
<apphillips> C078 reads:  
<apphillips>   Specifications MUST NOT allow the use of surrogate code points.  
<apphillips>   
<apphillips> My interpretation of it is that the spec should no allow the Unicode  
<apphillips> surrogate code points as a character by its own right.  It is not the  
<apphillips> intention to forbid use of surrogate pairs in UTF-16, is it? (If it is, I'd  
<apphillips> further question what UTF-16 is good for without surrogate pairs.)  
<apphillips>   
<apphillips> I'd phrase this such as:  
<apphillips>   Specifications MUST NOT allow surrogate code points as independent  
<apphillips>   characters; surrogate code points should be allowed only in  
<apphillips>   UTF-16 encoding when they form valid surrogate pairs.  
<apphillips>   
<apphillips> ]] 
<apphillips> FY: this stems from terminology confusion about code points vs. code units 
<apphillips> as if they were characters 
<apphillips> all: his interpretation is correct, but his rewrite is wrong. 
<apphillips> MD: proposed: respond, but no changes 
<apphillips> FY +1 
<apphillips> AP +1 
<apphillips> Action: Richard to respond, since he has the email address :-) 
<r12a> @@@@@ Kuro's email deleted for privacy

<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> RI: agendum proposal: 
<apphillips> 1. review the steps to achieve that 
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> explaining charmod in press release 
<MJDuerst> -
<MJDuerst> - Architectural specification
<apphillips> The goal of the Character Model for the World Wide Web is to facilitate use of the Web by all people, regardless of their language, script, writing system, and cultural conventions, in accordance with the W3C goal of universal access. One basic prerequisite to achieve this goal is to be able to transmit and process the characters used around the world in a well-defined and well-understood way. 
<r12a> This Architectural Specification provides authors of specifications, software developers, and content developers with a common reference for interoperable text manipulation on the World Wide Web, building on the Universal Character Set, defined jointly by the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646. Topics addressed include use of the terms 'character', 'encoding' and 'string', a reference processing model, choice and identification of character encodings, character esc
<apphillips> (It) provides the basic building blocks for text processing on the Web... 
<r12a> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#abstract
<r12a> These are the ground rules
<r12a> these are the things you'd expect /need people to understand to
<r12a> develop specifications for Web technology
<r12a> wrt characters and intenrational architecture
<apphillips> just characters (Unicode != I18N) 
<apphillips> Martin to work with Janet on this next week. 
<apphillips> Send suggestions to him 

<apphillips> --- 
<r12a> note from previous topic...
<r12a> martin to draw up table of comments re charmod pr
<r12a> martin to respond to bjoern
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> 25th is the scheduled date...... 
<apphillips> which is very close to today 
<apphillips> --- 
<apphillips> [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74e   
<apphillips> their response  [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html   
<apphillips> my response [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0051.html   
<apphillips> MD: schema for 1.1 might not be the same as schema for 1.0 
<apphillips> should we: 
<apphillips> a) tell them to use XML Schema 
<apphillips> b) tell them to replicate XML Schema exactly in WSDL (but for character ranges as defined in XML 1.1) 
<apphillips> c) something else? 
<apphillips> MD: define them only as usable in WSDL spec
<apphillips> MD: can't be mixed with schema 
<apphillips> MD: address individual issues on each type 

<apphillips> AP: should only have one schema language (not define a new one): no NIH 
<apphillips> AP: actual usages are restricted (excepting strings) 

<Zakim> -fyergeau
<apphillips> schema -> XML 1.0 -> Unicode 3.0 (2.X??) 
<apphillips> proposal: if not use XML Schema then you really need to fix each of the types 
<apphillips> (otherwise) use XML Schema 
<apphillips> (and furthermore) I18N Core WG doesn't take sides on which to do 
<apphillips> The component model uses a small set of predefined simple types, such as boolean, string, token. 
<apphillips> this is @   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#simpletypes 
<apphillips> new proposal: since the types are only in the WSDL component model, fix each type appropriately 
<apphillips> Note: the anyURI type should normatively reference IRI (RFC 3987) 

Adopted: 
<MJDuerst> If it's true, as explained to us during the AC meeting in Boston, that these types are really only there to be used in the WSDL spec, and not in any WSDL or XML Schema (or other) document, then this may be okay with us, but it has to be made much, much clearer. Also, the details of each type description have to be fixed and carefully checked so that they don't conflict with XML Schema or create misunderstandings.
<apphillips> AI: addison to forward our comments 

<MJDuerst> Richard, sink and sleep well!
<r12a> thanksyou

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:17:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:49 GMT