Re: [web-annotation] The textDirection and processingLanguage properties are not needed

> On 5 Aug 2016, at 19:34, Tantek Çelik <> 
> @azaroth42 <> appreciate the thoughtful 
consideration. I can understand the desire to at least try something 
(even if novel/untested) rather than nothing, and yes, defer that 
preference to WG consensus.
> My only requests (to "accept" this resolution to keep these 
features) is to both 1&2 (optionally also 3): 
> 1. Acknowledge the novel nature of these features with a 
non-normative "Warning" or "Note" saying something like these two 
properties are a novel (unverified and previously untested) way of 
attempting to handle direction/language information in a JSON syntax, 
and thus implementation and usability feedback is strongly encouraged,
 especially with respect to whether implementations are able to 
satisfy the i18n requirements (link) for users, with these features in
> 2. Add to the exit criteria: End-user verification that users of RTL
 / mixed directions and mixed languages are able to satisfy the stated
 i18n requirements use-cases using implementations that implement 
these properties. (If this can't be verified, then there's no proof 
the features have actually "helped" such users, and thus having them 
there may be worse than not having them, since they would provide a 
false/superficial sense i18n support). 
> 3. Optionally, mark these two properties as "At Risk", noting this 
aspect of the exit criteria, so that if this criterion that the 
features solve intended use-cases is not satisfied, then the WG has 
the option of simply dropping the properties in order to exit CR 
(presuming all other criteria are met of course) more quickly, 
deferring solving those use-cases to a different approach in a future 

While I would be fine with something like #1 referring to future 
versions of the spec, from an administrative point of view I am afraid
 #2 and #3 are not really possible. We are already in CR; 
setting/changing exit criteria or turning a feature to be 'at risk' is
 not possible at this point… Introducing this would trigger a new CR 
round and, beyond the extra time required it would be possible only 
with the Director's approval.

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 6 August 2016 07:24:11 UTC