- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:31:15 +0900
- To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
... are at http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html and below
as text.
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
i18n Core WG
23 Jan 2007
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0018.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-irc
Attendees
Present
Felix, Francois, Michael, Ienup
Regrets
Richard
Chair
Francois
Scribe
Felix
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]last week minutes
2. [6]action items
3. [7]Charmod C064 considered unclear
4. [8]LC drafts
5. [9]xml:base
6. [10]c14n
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Agenda at
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/001
8.html
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0018.html
last week minutes
[13]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-i18ncore-minutes
[13] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-i18ncore-minutes
approved minutes
action items
<scribe> ACTION: all to look at the C064 issue (ONGOING) [recorded
in [14]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to describe potential data binding review
(DONE) [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/001
3.html
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0013.html
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to the CSS WG saying that we did
not come to do the CSS 2.1 review and need an extension until 16
Februrary (DONE) [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/001
6.html
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0016.html
Felix: no reply yet
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to WS policy and say i18n core is
fine with the pocliy drafts (DONE) [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to xml schema saying we will have
IRI xml schema tests as part of the IRI test suite, no need to have
them within the xml schema conformance test suite (DONE) [recorded
in [20]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to reread Martins mail and to write a
reply to him (PENDING) [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to go back to PLS folks (DONE) [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update (PENDING)
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]
<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/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
norm (PENDING) [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-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/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to do the IDN work update (DONE) [recorded
in [27]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]
Michael: drafted a scenario, I'll send it at the end of today
Felix: tx, we will discuss it next week
Michael: tested various browsers on Windows
... I'll put the information in the draft
Charmod C064 considered unclear
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/001
3.html
[28]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0013.html
(Felix explains the mail)
Francois: Unicode page has evolved since we promoted charmod
... so charmod norm in relation to that Unicode page is a bit akward
... we put a reference to C063 and C064 to avoid references to e.g.
Unicode 1.0
... I see Bjoerns point now, the latest version does not mean
necessarly the latest published version
... if the latest book is the level of precision you need, that is
fine
... I would put a note after C064 and C065 saying that
Felix: adding a note without changing the statement is fine
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to draft s.t. for a note about C064 / C065
[recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]
Felix: should we maintain a reference?
Michael: no opinion
Ienup: we should avoid dublication
... it is responsibility of the Unicode consortium, not the W3C WG
... I had a question: why do we have the contradictory wording, with
Francois statement, I now understand
... making a clarification, Bjoern might be ok
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/003
1.html
[30]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0031.html
Francois: we cannot maintain that information
Ienup: we could point Bjoern to the URL from Unicode
<fyergeau>
[31]http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html#Latest
[31] http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html#Latest
Francois: we cannot give a guarentee if Unicode will maintain that
pages
Ienup: we could ask the Unicode UTC for a clarification
... i..e wether the URI will be maintained
... next meeting will be in February
... Feb 6-9
<scribe> ACTION: Ienup to go to the Unicode UTC and check the
stability of the "latest version" URI for referencing Unicode
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
Ienup: I will write a mail about the question to you guys
Felix: ok
LC drafts
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to VBWG asking about our CCXML
comments [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]
Felix: input to data binding comments, see
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/001
2.html
... should we ask them to information about the BOM?
[34]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0012.html
Francois: worried about that. BOM is specified in XML spec itself
... don't think we should make it too wide
... we should not make it too wide. Pointing to the Unicode FAQ is a
good idea
Ienup: agree, we should refer to Unicode FAQ
Felix: next comment: should they refer to XML 1.1 as well?
Francois: for XML Schema 1.0 it does not make sense, since it is XML
1.0, for implementations it is useful
Felix: the spec is not about implementations, so let's drop this
comment
[35]http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/
[35] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/
Francois: good to have a note about the differences between dateTime
in xml schema and programming languages
... on languageElement: agree with asking for a reference to BCP 47
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to bring i18n core comments to data binding
WG
xml:base
Francois: I'll try to make a reply to Martin before 31 January
c14n
Ienup: the document mentions BOM
... saying that BOM should be stripped out for utf-16
... it is referencing quite old definitions for utf-8 and utf-16,
they are quite outdated, they should reference the current version
of Unicode instead
... that reference has important information related to security
Francois: for BOM, I need to look at the spec. As for the
references: these are for the RFCs which control what utf-8 / utf-16
is on the internet
... I think this should remain references to the proper RFCs, only
utf-8 needs to be updated
... for the BOM: where do you want a change?
Ienup: sec 2.1
"For UTF-16, the leading byte order mark is treated as an artifact
of encoding and stripped from the UCS character data (subsequent
zero width non-breaking spaces appearing within the UTF-16 data are
not removed) [UTF-16, Section 3.2]"
should also mention utf-8
Francois: also update the references to Unicode
... and rfc 2279 to 3629
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to xml core with our comments on
c14n [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION:Felix to bring i18n core comments to data binding WG
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action121]
ACTION: Felix to go back to VBWG asking about our CCXML comments
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to go back to xml core with our comments on c14n
[recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]
[NEW] ACTION: Francois to draft s.t. for a note about C064 / C065
[recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Ienup to go to the Unicode UTC and check the stability
of the "latest version" URI for referencing Unicode [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: all to look at the C064 issue [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-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 [44]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod
norm [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-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
[46]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
[PENDING] ACTION: Francois to reread Martins mail and to write a
reply to him [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to describe potential data binding review
[recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to the CSS WG saying that we did not
come to do the CSS 2.1 review and need an extension until 16
Februrary [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to WS policy and say i18n core is
fine with the pocliy drafts [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to go back to xml schema saying we will have
IRI xml schema tests as part of the IRI test suite, no need to have
them within the xml schema conformance test suite [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Michael to do the IDN work update [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]
[DONE] ACTION: Richard to go back to PLS folks [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.127
([55]CVS log)
$Date: 2007/01/23 16:29:12 $
[54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[55] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 16:31:47 UTC