W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > October to December 2006

[I18N Core] Teleconference Minutes 2006-12-12

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:24:58 +0900
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <1165940698.5343.25.camel@fsasaki-desktop>

... are at http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes and below as
text.

Felix


   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                        i18n core Working Group

12 Dec 2006

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0012.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Felix, Francois, Ienup, Michael, Richard

   Regrets
          Karunesh, Vijay

   Chair
          Francois

   Scribe
          Felix

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]action items
         2. [6]last minutes
         3. [7]IDNA issue update
         4. [8]IRI tests for XML Schema
         5. [9]XQuery full text review - udpate?
         6. [10]LTLI update
         7. [11]PLS comments
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

last minutes

   approved

action items

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to ask for an extension for CSS 2.1 review
   (DONE) [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to gather pointers for Michael about W3C in
   general ... (DONE) [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to Bjoern saying Martins mail is a
   WG answer (DONE) [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]

   francois: got a reply from Bjoern, might want to discuss it later

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to the WG finally (DONE) [recorded
   in [16]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to write a mail about possibility for SVG
   tiny specific IRI tests to martin and the i18n core list (PENDING)
   [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather
   information on options for diacrictics in collations (ONGOING)
   [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]

   francois: so far, found oracle collation which has some
   parameterization
   ... for those collations, diacritics are not independent of case

   <scribe> ACTION: All to read Martins comments on IDNA issues
   (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to see what has to be updated on tutorial
   material for IDNA issues [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]

   note of martin
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Oct/001
   3.html

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Oct/0013.html

   felix: let's drop AI 7, I do AI 8

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to to classify open LTLI issues (DONE)
   [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
   norm (PENDING) [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to give input to wiki for the LTLI summary
   (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]

   francois: update from Mark, Felix updated LTLI draft later

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to review InkML LC draft (PENDING)
   [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]

   felix: LC is until 18 December

   richard: we talk on tuesday, and see if we need an extension

   <scribe> ACTION: Richard to find out what is the canonical URI for
   BCP47 (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]

   richard: got various URIs from the IETF, Philippe Le Hegaret (IETF
   Liaison from W3C) is working on it

IDNA issue update

   francois: concluded during AI review

IRI tests for XML Schema

   felix describes the mail
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/001
   1.html

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0011.html

   francois: testing resolving is good
   ... but just to have a test to verify that IRI does not blow up
   everything would be good
   ... validating a document that contains an instance of anyURI
   ... is necessary as well
   ... i.e. positive tests

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to schema people with our test
   ideas for XML schema anyURI [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]

XQuery full text review - udpate?

   felix: postpone to next week, let's look at it next week

LTLI update

   richard: BP statements should be first, explanations later

   [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/
   0026.html

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0026.html

   - What topic is *not* covered by the document yet? By "covered" I
   don't

   mean that the text about the topic is completely finished, but that
   the

   topic has a - more or less filled - place in the document.

   - Do you agree with the general structure of the document?

   - I have integrated best practices statements in each subsection of
   sec. 3

   (except sec. 3.6, not done yet), and in sec. 4. Do you agree with
   this

   approach? Should we get rid of the normative statements in sec. 6,
   or sec.

   6 as a whole?

   richard: feels strange to have both BP and conformance statements
   ... with only BP, we don't have power to enforce s.t.

   francois: TAG document has a lot of wheight, with only BP

   richard: we need to think if we want to demote sec. 6 by calling the
   other stuff BP
   ... not sure if that is good
   ... if everything is BP, but sec. 6 is important for people to do
   ... that is difficult

   francois: difficult to have both normative and BP statements
   ... the web arch has BP statements, but also refers to RFC 2119
   ... so they make the BP statements normative

   richard: no, I consider BP statements like in Geo. Here, "should"
   clarifiers the language only
   ... the conformance section should say "if you develop specs at W3C,
   you need to take the following into account: ..."

   francois: the web arch does not have that, I think
   ... for LTLI we want to have some normative statements to use within
   w3c
   ... for LTLI, we also say s.t. how to identify locales

   "* Core of a locale: language (mostly). No need (or ability) for
   LTLI to define the rest."

   from [30]http://esw.w3.org/topic/i18nLTLI

     [30] http://esw.w3.org/topic/i18nLTLI

   francois: we can say normatively "use a language identifier (BCP 47)
   as the core of the locale"
   ... editorial thing: difference between CLDR and LDML
   ... there is also an ISO thing about locale

   <scribe> ACTION: francois to look after ISO locale related spec
   [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]

   general agreement that normative statement about language identifier
   (BCP 47) as the core of the locale would be valuable in LTLI

   richard: need to change "RFC 4646" to "... or its successor"

   <scribe> ACTION: felix to update LTLI with "or its successor "
   statements [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]

   <scribe> ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action17]

PLS comments

   <r12a>
   [34]http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Team/search?type-index=w3t&index-t
   ype=t&keywords=%27Canonical%27+URI+for+BCP+47+&search=Search

     [34] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Team/search?type-index=w3t&index-type=t&keywords=%27Canonical%27+URI+for+BCP+47+&search=Search

   <r12a>
   [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/
   0024.html

     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0024.html

   richard: a number of comments and my take on whose

   R 103-7

   R 103-20

   richard: we should try to get them to reference to BCP 47
   ... we hope to provide the right URI within a week or so

   francois: so "at least update rfc 4646, and please BCP 47"

   R103-21

   richard: should remove dc:language example, it's confusing

   francois: yes

   R103-30

   (later)

   R103-45

   francois: fine

   R103-36

   <lexeme role="mypos:noun">

   <r12a>
   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/
   0024.html

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0024.html

   francois: shorthand for the concatenation of namespace URI and verb
   ... do they define it?

   richard: don't think so. Also: is it normal to have this as an
   attribute value?

   francois: yes, you could say: it is an XPath with one component
   ... there is a new spec which has a name for this
   ... they should prefer to s.t. to justify the usage

   richard: it is a little confusing

   francois: it is called CURIEs

   richard: will go back to them asking to explain how their mechanism
   works, or use a simpler examply

   R103-26

   (fine)

   R103-33

   richard: don't see the expansion, otherwise I'm fine

   R103-30

   richard: they are not having markup for bidi
   ... they say "people can use the unicode control characters"

   Scribe dropped temporarily. Summary of discussion: WG decided to go
   back to PLS folks and say: We are not happy with your resolution
   here, but we will not insist on the comment. Richard will also
   explain why using markup is better than control characters (e.g.
   visibility of bidi information via markup, explicit structure via
   XML elements with @dir attribute, ...).

   [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/
   0025.html

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0025.html

   Felix agreed also to drop the proposal in the mail 0025 above.

   ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action17]
   [NEW] ACTION: Felix to go back to schema people with our test ideas
   for XML schema anyURI [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
   [NEW] ACTION: Felix to see what has to be updated on tutorial
   material for IDNA issues [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]
   [NEW] ACTION: felix to update LTLI with "or its successor "
   statements [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]
   [NEW] ACTION: francois to look after ISO locale related spec
   [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Felix to write a mail about possibility for SVG
   tiny specific IRI tests to martin and the i18n core list [recorded
   in [43]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
   norm [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to give input to wiki for the LTLI
   summary [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather
   information on options for diacrictics in collations [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to review InkML LC draft [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Richard to find out what is the canonical URI for
   BCP47 [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]

   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to ask for an extension for CSS 2.1 review
   [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to gather pointers for Michael about W3C in
   general ... [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to Bjoern saying Martins mail is a
   WG answer [recorded in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to the WG finally [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to to classify open LTLI issues [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([55]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/12/12 16:21:34 $

     [54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [55] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 16:25:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:51 GMT