- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:44:16 +0900
- 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 UTC