W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Fwd: Minutes I18N Core TF telcon, 2003-08-05

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:30:57 -0400
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: duerst@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030814183057.GM22433@w3.org>

Forwarded from Martin Duerst. The I18N group have decided to object 
to our current (unpublished) design for lang tagging of XML literals. 
Martin is working on a document detailing their concerns.

Dan

----- Forwarded message from Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> -----

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:28:34 -0400
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-archive@w3.org
Subject: Fwd: Minutes I18N Core TF telcon, 2003-08-05
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030813112503.04784008@localhost>

Hello Danbri,

The following mail went to Brian, but he seems to be on vacation.
Could you forward it to the RDF Core WG, or give them the URI
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Aug/0043.html).

The relevant information for your group is:

>>>>>>>>
>Reviews
>=======
>
>RDF:
>  Major issue about language information for XML literals.
>
>Discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Aug/0022.html
>with Brian, for ca. 60 minutes.
>
>--- Brian leaves
>
>Further discussion about language information for XML literals in RDF.
>
>Decision: Agree to raise an objection, need to work out details of text.
>          (three for objecting, one on hold)
>
>Action item: Martin to produce a summary, based on Richard's mail.
>>>>>>>>


Regards,    Martin.


>Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:30:41 -0400
>To: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
>From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
>Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: Minutes I18N Core TF telcon, 2003-08-05
>X-Archived-At: 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030805125745.0465c4b0@localhost
>List-Id: <w3c-i18n-ig.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-i18n-ig-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

>I18N Core task force teleconference
>Tuesday, August 5,  2003
>
>Present: Brian (guest), Francois, Richard, Tex, Martin (chair/scribe)
>
>
>This teleconference was mainly be devoted to RDF review issues.
>
>
>Agenda (overview)
>======
>
>Review of agenda
>
>Review of actions
>
>Review of dependencies
>
>Next face-to-face:
>  Decision: not to have a f2f meeting until further need
>     for f2f meeting arises (e.g. to finish character model)
>
>Teleconference schedule over the summer
>
>Reviews
>
>Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
>
>Charmod
>
>AOB
>
>
>Actions (carryover and new)
>=======
>
>Martin: Maybe create a form to change comments? But maybe overkill
>        where a single mail can answer more than one comment.
>        Ongoing
>
>Martin: Look at the word 'character' (especially from 3.5 onwards) to
>        check whether they should be replaced with 'code point' or
>        other term. See
>http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c2d68a$d488a0f0$d901000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2
>
>Martin: Check where to say that the CharMod only deals with
>        character encodings that are subsets of the Unicode repertoire.
>        (But if it ain't broke, don't fix it)
>
>Richard: To create examples, see
>         http://www.w3.org/mid/000601c2fdd2$966e0f70$7801000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2
>
>Francois: to think some more about terminology conflict outlined in
>          http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030408124505.0535fef8@localhost
>          (entities)
>          ongoing
>
>Martin: provide glue text for rewrite in charmod 4.4
>
>Martin: write to Michael to confirm C150, C151
>
>Martin: update closed issues in charmod LC.
>
>Richard: See charmod through intermediate WD publication
>         ongoing
>
>Richard: To remove the two characters (U+0FB0 and U+0FB8)
>         from the list of composing characters, and
>         change the definition of 'composing character'
>         as described in:
>http://www.w3.org/mid/F7D4BDA0E5A1D14B99D32C022AEB7366EEE5B9@alis-2k.alis.d 
>o     main.
>
>Martin: get an example for SSML 2.2.1.
>
>Martin: add links about recent reviews (MathML,...) to review page
>        ongoing
>
>Martin: inform Arnold Winkler that he may drop off the mailing list,
>        and reestablish liaison with ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22/WG20
>
>Martin: update and resend as draft arguments on RDF XML Literals
>    http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030714135605.04d818e8@localhost
>        superseeded by next action item
>
>Martin: produce a summary on our objection to the removal of language
>        information from RDF XML Literals, based on Richard's mail.
>        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Aug/0022.html
>
>Martin: inform Unicode consortium about our comments to review
>        issues 9/10/11
>
>Richard: ask for an extension for CSS UI last call review
>         DONE
>
>Martin: Look at Dom Event reply to our last call comments
>        DONE, at
>http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030724113440.05705bd0@localhost
>
>Francois: ask for an extension for DOM Core/Load&Save
>          DONE
>
>
>Next face-to-face
>=================
>  The next chance for a f2f would be around the Unicode
>  conference in Atlanta
>      potential interest for a meeting in Montreal in late August
>      or early September (after Unicode conference)
>      further discussion needed
>
>  Decision: not to have a f2f meeting until further need
>     (e.g. to finish character model) for f2f meeting arises
>
>
>Teleconferences over the summer
>===============================
>
>Anybody taking any summer holidays?
>
>Francois: most probably off 13/20 of August
>
>
>Dependencies (carried forward)
>============
>
>UTC: Unicode Consortium to cover white space handling in a TR.
>
>CSS WG: Wait for a reply on bidi localization and positioning issues
>    http://www.w3.org/mid/000d01c329d3$941e5540$ec01000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2
>
>
>Reviews
>=======
>
>RDF:
>  Major issue about language information for XML literals.
>
>Discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Aug/0022.html
>with Brian, for ca. 60 minutes.
>
>--- Brian leaves
>
>Further discussion about language information for XML literals in RDF.
>
>Decision: Agree to raise an objection, need to work out details of text.
>          (three for objecting, one on hold)
>
>Action item: Martin to produce a summary, based on Richard's mail.
>
>
>  http://www.w3.org/International/2003/07/rdf-literal-issues.html
>  Other issues:
>  - Unification of text types
>  - XML Literals denote sequences of octets
>
>
>CSS basic UI: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-ui-20030703/
>   last call ends 31 July 2003.
>   Martin reviewed about half of the document
>   Action Richard to ask for an extension
>
>DOM3 Events: Amend/confirm our answer to their disposition of comments
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2003JulSep/0008.html
>     DOM: comments back re. Events have formally been sent to us.
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-dom-ig/2003Jun/0026.html
>     Martin to look at them
>
>DOM Core/Load and Save: Looked at
>http://www.w3.org/mid/F7D4BDA0E5A1D14B99D32C022AEB73660EB33A@alis-2k.alis.d 
>o main
>e need more time. In particular, we have to check 1.3.2 in Core
>(IRIs).
>Francois to ask for an extension.
>
>CSS syntax and BOM:
>http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c351e7$06710030$ec01000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2
>shortly discussed, but interrupted for RDF discussion
>
>Public overview page:
>http://www.w3.org/International/core/reviews.html
>Draft for internal purposes:
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/reviews/
>
>
>+ Unicode review update
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030630142639.04caf140@localhost
>  Deadline: August 15
>    Issue #9  Bengali Reph and Ya-Phalaa
>      http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-9.pdf
>      No objection
>    Issue #10  Interlinear Annotation Characters
>      http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-10.html
>      Tex: These are not needed for markup, so we are not so concerned
>      Richard: Concern that certain conventions to show these
>               could become entrenched
>      Francois: Default ignorable can lead to misunderstandings
>      Martin: display as black box or question mark would be fine
>
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030630142653.04beb2d8@localhost
>  Deadline: August 18
>    Issue #11  Soft Dotted Property
>      http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-11.html
>      No objection
>
>
>IRI
>===
>
>
>Charmod
>=======
>
>
>Technical
>---------
>Discussion about further changing definition 'combining character'
>according to Franocis' mail:
>http://www.w3.org/mid/F7D4BDA0E5A1D14B99D32C022AEB7366EEE5B9@alis-2k.alis.d 
>o    main
>needs further discussion.
>
>Short discussion: change would increase stability with respect
>to new combining characters in future versions of Unicode.
>Martin: In my implementation, would not speed up things, because
>        speed up can be achieved by observing the special category
>        of combining characters that don't appear in any precomposed
>        character that appears in NFC, without changing the definition.
>
>
>(not discussed)
>
>
>- Looking at pending issues, see
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/001d01c30ff9$072abaa0$7801000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2
>  (items without initials are MD)13
>
>  C042-C044: Accepted, but need to figure out what we actually have to do.
>
>  C056/C057: see
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030311123515.03704b38@localhost
>  C056 needs some edits.
>
>  C066 seems to require some serious work.
>
>  C074: needs some editing to section 2
>
>  C117: can be closed, because actual edits have been done.
>
>  C118: edits need to be checked
>
>  C122 (RI): needs to be implemented (edits)
>
>  C123: if you are allowed to not conform, do you conform?
>        possible solution: XML would not conform to some of the
>        criteria, but would conform to the character model
>
>  C132 (FY): needs editing
>
>  C133: edits have been done, can be closed
>
>  C147: may need to be reconsidered
>
>  C155 (RI).
>
>  C158: edits have been done, can be closed
>
>  C169: edits have been done, can be closed
>
>  C171: edits have been done, can be closed
>
>  C185 (FY): needs a note to be added
>
>  C190: needs to be checked
>
>- Comment from James Clark about early uniform normalization
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/3EA7C585.90600@jclark.com
>  Looks interesting, needs further consideration.
>  Some discussion about how much delay addressing this comment
>  would add to getting to CR.
>
>- Review text about entity having only a single encoding:
>   http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/#sec-RefProcModel
>   (this needs Martin's text added)
>   http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20030408124505.0535fef8@localhost
>
>   Francois: add "transmission" to "storage and retrieval"
>   Richard: don't use <termdef> elsewhere
>   Decision: we will change the stylesheet for <termdef>
>   Francois: change from 'text' to 'textual' seems to have been lost
>   Decision: drop changes
>
>   Terminology conflict:
>
>   Skimmed the document for occurences of the term 'entity'.
>   Discovered quite a few in section 4, where the term is used
>   in connection with includes, and subsumes internal XML entities
>   (as well as escapes). This is a terminology conflict that we have
>   to resolve.
>
>   Proposals:
>
>   Case:                include                 external
>
>   a)                   entity                  external entity
>
>   b)                   included text           entity
>
>   any others?
>
>
>Proceeding further:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/i18n-editor/2003Jan/0004.html
>
>    [1] ensure that every LC comment is assigned to an owner
>
>    ok, main owners are RI and MD, they can edit this themselves
>
>    [2] owner checks all their lcc's for up to date and consistent IDS
>        columns
>
>    [3] owner checks that descriptions contain all relevant information
>        (and ensures that it is kept up to date as we send out 
>        notifications)
>
>    [4] in particular, owner checks that descriptions contain brief
>        explanations for all rejected, partially-accepted and NA
>        decisions, and that the decision is always listed
>
>    [5] owner prepares notification mails where applicable and sends
>        (then tracks and reports feedback).
>
>- Replying to commenters:
>   - serious replies should go out one per comment, small things
>     (e.g. editorial) can be sent in one mail per commenter
>   - clearly state our expectations:
>     For editorial stuff that is accepted or not applicable,
>     say that we don't expect any kind of confirmation.
>   - we have commenter's emails, but not WG emails; should
>     send response back to WGs; please copy w3c-i18n-ig
>
>
>
>Regards,   Martin.
>

----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 14:30:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:38 EDT