Re: FPWD of Additional Requirements for Bidi in HTML

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Hi Richard and I18N WG,
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>> HTML folks,
>> Just to let you know the expectations of the i18n WG wrt this 
>> document[1] which was published yesterday.  We do not expect the HTML 
>> WG to review and comment on it just yet.
>> The document is still in early draft, and was published to facilitate 
>> ongoing feedback from bidi experts and i18n folks. It also contains 
>> some explicitly identified open issues.
>> The plan is to obtain feedback as soon as possible from bidi experts 
>> and internationalization folks, then issue a new draft that 
>> incorporates the results of those discussions.  Only at that point do 
>> we plan to put the proposals to the HTML community and seek their 
>> comments and commitment. Depending on the amount of discussion that 
>> takes place, we would hope to publish the second draft in about a 
>> month from now.
>> [1]
> It's a little quirky to deliver feedback on the HTML WG's deliverables 
> in the form of a Working Draft developed elsewhere, and it might have 
> been better to make us more aware of this effort ahead of time. (I, for 
> one, was surprised to see  seventh Working Draft published with ours and 
> was puzzled that I hadn't seen it before.)

I don't believe that it has been established that bidi is an HTML WG 
deliverable.  All that I have seen stated is "Seven Documents Related to 
HTML Published".

> That being said, as long as the HTML WG gets the feedback in the end, 
> I'm not too concerned with the process of developing it.

I would modify that statement: as long as the groups are working 
together, I'm not concerned about which group publishes it.

>  From reading over this draft, it seems to me that most of this feedback 
> is ready to be delivered to the HTML WG right now. I see many specific 
> points that identify a specific problem in great detail, outline why the 
> current state of the spec doesn't work, and propose at lest one workable 
> solution. That's more than enough data to go into a bug report.
> I would expect that bug reports on these issues would most likely 
> resolved expeditiously to everyone's satisfaction, and without any great 
> controversy. The only potential problems I see are with details of 
> syntax(*). I think those are best resolved within the HTML WG. I also 
> suspect some of the comments may be issues for CSS, not HTML, for 
> example the treatment of list markers. HTML completely defers to CSS on 
> list rendering. Either way, it would be good to identify those kinds of 
> issues ASAP rather than continuing to develop in a silo.
> If the I18N WG would like these issues addressed before Last Call, I 
> strongly recommend delivering the feedback to the HTML WG as soon as 
> possible, ideally in the form of bug reports, one per distinct issue.

Against which component would such bugs be filed?

What I see published for bidi seems to meet the criteria for a 
vendor-neutral applicable specification, as described by section 2.2.2 
of the HTML5 Working Draft.

Given that this document has been approved for publication as a FPWD, I 
would suggest that for the moment the right approach is that technical 
comments follow the process defined in the draft itself: namely, "Please 
send comments on this document to", and that 
procedural arguments over venue (e.g., "I think those are best resolved 
within the HTML WG") be directed to the Interaction Domain lead.

> Regards,
> Maciej
> * - Examples of potential syntactic quibbles: (1) It would probably be 
> better for the "bdi" attribute to act like a normal HTML boolean 
> attribute where only presence or absence is relevant, not the value; (2) 
> the name "bdi" is a bit obscure for a global attribute and may be prone 
> to typos; (3) "submit_dir" does not match the usual conventions for HTML 
> attribute naming. I raise these not to suggest changes to the draft but 
> rather to point out that the HTML WG needs to review these issues and 
> should do so ASAP.

I do encourage members of the HTML WG to review the draft, and report 
any issues that they find.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 7 March 2010 18:09:51 UTC