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

[I18N Core] Teleconference Minutes 2006-12-19

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:44:16 +0900
Message-ID: <4588A380.5040900@w3.org>
To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>

... are at http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html and below
as text.

Felix

   [1]W3C

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

                        i18n core Working Group

19 Dec 2006

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0020.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Felix, Francois, Mark, Michael, Karunesh, Richard, Vijay

   Regrets
          Ienup

   Chair
          Francois

   Scribe
          Felix

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]last meetings minutes
         2. [6]review of actions
         3. [7]XML Schema tests (again)
         4. [8]LTLI update
         5. [9]discussion on IDNs
         6. [10]InkML comments
         7. [11]next meeting
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

last meetings minutes

   approved

review of actions

   <scribe> ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update (PENDING)
   [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to schema people with our test
   ideas for XML Schema (DONE) [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to see what has to be updated on tutorial
   material for IDNA issues (DONE) [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]

   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/
   0045.html

     [16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0045.html

   Felix: should we bring that to GEO?

   Richard: might be good to include the GEO folks in a separate mail
   ... on the proposal in general: what makes certain things invalid?

   <r12a>
   [17]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-idna-bidi-0
   0.txt

     [17]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-idna-bidi-00.txt

   francois: the RFC says that it must end with a strong RTL or LTR
   character
   ... a combining character is not possible, that is the issue

   richard: what about control characters?

   francois: don't found the word joiner in the draft

   richard: the article tries to be very high level
   ... linking to an RFC is s.t. we would try to avoid

   francois: here it is even no RFC, but a draft which will expire

   (discussion on how to bring the information of the internet draft
   into i18n activity material)

   richard: have a short note in the article about "combining
   characters should not be at the end of a label" would to it, right?

   felix: yes

   richard: how about a blog entry about the detail? This is better
   than an article, since the issue is of temporal interest

   felix: fine with me

   francois: the IRI / IDN article needs to mention the issue
   ... also the pages on browsers

   richard: these pages have a section saying "does it work today?"
   ... these need an update

   francois: current status is: they have reanabled them and they have
   a white list
   ... so does it work? yes, but: there are restrictions (TLDs, RTL
   scripts)

   richard: yes, we could add s.t. in the article as well
   ... Michael, would you like to do s.t. like that?

   Michael: sure

   <r12a>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/#work

     [18] http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/#work

   <scribe> ACTION: Michael to propose an update to the section in the
   IRI - IDN draft "does it work?" about domain names, see what needs
   to be sad these days [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]

   <scribe> ACTION: Richard to add the alverstrand draft to the IRI /
   IDN article [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to prepare a text of a blog entry about the
   IRI / IDN issue in the alverstrand draft and send it Richard
   [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]

   Richard: write it an news paper style, to help people

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to update LTLI with "or its successor "
   statements (DONE) [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to look after ISO locale related spec
   (DONE) [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]

   <fyergeau> ISO TR 14652

   francois: was later replaced (not officially, but effectively) by
   the Unicode CLDR
   ... it had many problems. But some linux systems made use of that
   data
   ... may be worth mentioning in LTLI, just for completness

   <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
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]

   felix: might phone chris and ask him

   francois: yes

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
   norm (PENDING) [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather
   information on options for diacrictics in collations (PENDING)
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]

   <scribe> ACTION: Francois to review InkML LC draft (DROPPED)
   [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]

   richard: I reviewed InkML, we can discuss it today if possible

   <scribe> ACTION: Richard to find out what is the canonical URI for
   BCP47 (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]

   Francois: the IETF points to the RFC-Editor officially , so I'm not
   convinced by Martin's arguments

XML Schema tests (again)

   (Felix summarizes the discussion)

   Francois: we had sad that a test for an attribute typed as anyURI
   would be valuable
   ... we should go back to them and insist

   felix: agree

   francois: one IRI in the test suite to verify anyURI would be good

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to XML Schema people with WG reply
   on IRI tests [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]

LTLI update

   (Felix gives a summary of last week's discussion)

   Francois: the TAG document uses "best practices" as "normative
   statements"
   ... they just go on and say "this is a good practice"
   ... we could do the same thing by removing section 6
   ... at
   [30]http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/#sec-locale-vs-lan
   guage
   ... we could remove that section and maybe also sec. 5, or rewrite
   it

     [30]
http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/#sec-locale-vs-language

   Mark: what in sec. 6 should not be normative?

   Francois: statement 1 "Specifications that make use of language tags
   or locale values MUST meet the conformance criteria defined for
   "well-formed" processors, as defined in sec. 2.2.9 of [RFC 4646]."

   Mark: well-formed is just the syntax

   Francois: we want to say "refer to BCP 47"

   Mark: there is a value in statement no. 2
   ... there are circumstances where you don't want to validate values
   ... if s..t comes from a trusted source
   ... it is unlikely, but it could happen

   francois: RFC 4646 and 4647: don't these documents discuss such
   things?

   Mark: these docments describe what it means to be valid /
   well-formed
   ... the wording in sec. 6 of LTLI is nice; RFC 4646 it does not say
   you have to validate
   ... the statements 1 and 2 are useful
   ... no 1 in particular is very useful
   ... esp. for other w3c specs
   ... no. 2 is slightly less valuable, because it is like saying "I
   conform to RFC 4646"

   Francois: we want to tell spec writers that they have to use whose
   definitions from RFC 4646
   ... were are going for validity, Mark?

   Mark: for validity, you check the registry
   ... you make a copy of the registry
   ... checking against a list of subtags

   Francois: were do you want to place the obligation to check validity
   or well-formedness?
   ... take e.g. xml:lang? XML Core WG discussed what validation should
   be done for xml:lang
   ... the parser does not do anything to language tags except passing
   it to the application

   Mark: there is a backwards compatibility issue here
   ... the new syntax in RFC 4646 is narrower than RFC 3066

   Francois: even the narrow syntax of RFC 3066 was removed from the
   xml spec
   ... in the HTTP protocol: should an HTTP receiver check the
   well-formedness of tag?

   Mark: there is a lot of crap in these area, we did a lot of tests
   ... e.g. accept-lang can contain a word like "spanish" or complete
   rubbish
   ... you could say "XML parser MUST validate"
   ... another possibility to say "it could only be interpreted if
   valid"

   Francois: that sounds better. You cannot write any type of spec with
   a MUST to check well-formedness
   ... the XML spec does not satisfy no. 1, and there is no need to do
   that

   Mark: the weakest thing we should say: if you interpret the language
   tag, interpret it as RFC 4646
   ... actually BCP 47

   RESOLUTION: agreement to have a statement like "if you interpret the
   language tag, interpret it as RFC 4646" in LTLI

   Francois: if you have a specification which includes language
   tagging
   ... you MUST say "this must be according to BCP 47"
   ... we should say: Specifications that specify language tagging of
   any short should say that the semantics and syntax or that should
   folow BCP 47
   ... without forcing implementations of the spec to do so

   RESOLUTION: Have a statement like "Specifications that specify
   language tagging of any short should say that the semantics and
   syntax or that should follow BCP 47 without forcing implementations
   of the spec to verify wellformedness or validity" in LTLI

   Mark: we could have one further statement like
   ... if I "hit" a language tag that is not well-formed or invalid, I
   should not interpret it as a language tag
   ... example: xml:lang says "English". That is an invalid tag. I
   should not interpret it
   ... this is saying "this is what you have to do if you get an
   invalid tag?"
   ... if I process UTF-8 and get e.g. C080

   francois: it is like the xml spec which says "if you are not
   well-formed, you should stop processing"

   mark: we don't need to stop, you could e.g. transform the invalid
   value into s.t. valid
   ... but what you should not do is interpret it into s.t. that
   propagates the error

discussion on IDNs

   mark: there is a dicussion on IDNs ongoing
   ... it would be good to join

   Francois: it is an IETF list?

   Mark: I send the information to the core list.

   <r12a> [31]http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0612-inkML/

     [31] http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0612-inkML/

   <r12a> [32]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-InkML-20061023/

     [32] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-InkML-20061023/

InkML comments

   richard: they don't use xml:lang anywhere
   ... I'm saying "why?"
   ... I'm also saying "xml:lang should be used for indicating the
   language of the document"
   ... I want to confirm with you that xml:lang is not appropriate for
   following the traces

   Francois: I disagree
   ... if the document has traces, xml:lang can apply to the traces

   richard: an element like <annotation
   type="contentCategory">Text/en</annotation> can be used to say what
   language the traces should be
   ... I'm happy with them not using xml:lang here

   Francois: xml:lang has strict scoping rules, which don't apply for
   <annotation type="contentCategory">Text/en</annotation>, so it's
   good not to use xml:lang here

   Richard: the same in SSML
   ... now on comment 11: about time string
   ... they create a time stamp

   (people will look at the comments today or tomorrow, Richard will
   send them out tomorrow)

next meeting

   next weeks meeting cancelled, good holiday for everybody

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Felix to go back to XML Schema people with WG reply on
   IRI tests [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
   [NEW] ACTION: Felix to prepare a text of a blog entry about the IRI
   / IDN issue in the alverstrand draft and send it Richard [recorded
   in [34]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: Michael to propose an update to the section in the IRI
   - IDN draft "does it work?" about domain names, see what needs to be
   sad these days [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: Richard to add the alverstrand draft to the IRI / IDN
   article [recorded in
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]

   [PENDING] ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Felix to write a mail about possibility for SVG
   tiny specific IRI tests to martin and the i18n core list [recorded
   in [38]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
   norm [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather
   information on options for diacrictics in collations [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Richard to find out what is the canonical URI for
   BCP47 [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]

   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to schema people with our test ideas
   for XML Schema [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to see what has to be updated on tutorial
   material for IDNA issues [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to update LTLI with "or its successor "
   statements [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]
   [DONE] ACTION: Francois to look after ISO locale related spec
   [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]

   [DROPPED] ACTION: Francois to review InkML LC draft [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([48]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/12/20 02:40:26 $

     [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 02:44:41 GMT

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