RE: FPWD of Additional Requirements for Bidi in HTML

> From: Maciej Stachowiak []
> Sent: 08 March 2010 01:29
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: Richard Ishida;;; Philippe
> Hegaret
> Subject: Re: FPWD of Additional Requirements for Bidi in HTML
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > 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".
> >
> >
> I don't think this *draft* is established as an HTML WG deliverable.
> However, the draft suggests possible changes to HTML, rather than
> itself defining conformance requirements. My assumption is that
> there's a desire to put these changes in the HTML spec itself, not to
> convert to a document to a standalone spec that defines its own
> separate conformance requirements. Perhaps Richard could clarify.

You are correct. The bidi document is aimed at WG Note status.  We are using
the bidi document to clarify our thoughts wrt problematic cases that are not
defined by current the HTML spec, but we have no intention of specifying
those items ourselves. As the status section says, we are making 'proposals'
that will need to be considered by the HTML WG, and Aharon has tried to word
such proposals as suggestions. These are suggestions, however, that bring to
bear the experience of experts in the rather specialised world of the
bidirectional algorithm and use of RTL scripts. 

In addition, I feel that having a document where we can fully explain the
issues and use cases will be beneficial, not only to HTML but for other
markup specifications, since many of the concepts discussed are also
relevant for markup in general.  The aim of the document is to establish
clearly what the requirements are, based on input from experts and users in
the bidi world, and make initial proposals for how that could be handled in
markup.  Personally, once we have intersected with HTML, I'd like to see the
bidi document generalised to be less HTML-specific.

> Also, HTML5 already defines many markup features for bidi support in
> particular and international text in general. It's clearly in scope.
> >
> >> 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.
> I would be concerned if the end result is two specs with contradictory
> conformance requirements, without even an attempt to fix the HTML5
> spec itself.

See above. 

> >
> >> 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?
> "HTML5 spec bugs".
> > 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.
> Maybe I am misunderstanding the draft, but it looks to me like it is
> requesting changes to HTML, not attempting to be its own separate
> specification. Let's take a specific example. The draft suggests that
> <br> should act as a bidi separator. HTML5 specifically says it should
> *not* act as a bidi separator (as does HTML4). It seems logical that
> the intent here is to fix HTML5, not to have a separate spec with a
> directly contradictory processing requirement.
> My interpretation of the intent of this document seems to be in
> accordance with the subsequent note from Addison Phillips.
> Really all I'm saying is that *if* the I18N WG wants this document to
> result in changes to HTML5, they should try to deliver the relevant
> feedback to the HTML WG as soon as possible. Richard's original note
> was that I18N WG plans to wait at least a month before making any
> proposals to the HTML WG or seeking feedback.

We hear you. Thanks.  I'll discuss ti with Aharon and the i18n folks.  

> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 10:59:46 UTC