- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:21:48 +0100
- To: www International <www-international@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-i18n-minutes.html
Text version follows:
Internationalization Core Working Group Teleconference
13 Jun 2012
[2]Agenda
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2012Jun/0001.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-i18n-irc
Attendees
Present
koji, aphillip, matial, andrewc, Gwyneth,
+972.7.474.6aaaa, +1.415.885.aabb, Norbert
Regrets
Richard
Chair
Addison Phillips
Scribe
Addison Phillips
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Agenda and Minutes
2. [6]Action Items
3. [7]Info Share
4. [8]IRI and IRI bidi documents
5. [9]AOB?
* [10]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Agenda and Minutes
Action Items
close ACTION-101
<trackbot> ACTION-101 Extend number of ports for I18N call to
15 closed
ACTION-109: koji: haven't heard back, will ping again
<trackbot> ACTION-109 Check about Korean layout task force
notes added
close ACTION-130
<trackbot> ACTION-130 Write to www-international, including
decriptions of other lists from about page, announcing changes
in our use of list closed
Info Share
andrew: working for state gov't creating guidelines on how they
use translations on the web
... especially focusing on new/emerging languages
... that have limited support
... will be probably public
IRI and IRI bidi documents
[11]http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Review_radar
[11] http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Review_radar
[12]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-09
[12] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-09
[13]http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-00
[13] http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-00
[14]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11
[14] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11
[15]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01
[15] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01
Norbert: thought comparison document looked fine
matial: no problem with it
[16]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-0
2
[16] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02
matial: may be different for hebrew vs. arabic users
... or even between individual users
... still trying to do usability tests
... one thing I don't like in document is that there is too
much freedom
... not as critical what we decide as long as mandatory
... e.g. in Section 3
... talks about components
... domain, segment, etc.
... each one should laid out independently of other components
... and then components can be subdivided, such as labels in
domain names
... but if labels allowed to swap (or not) in implementations,
it should be consistent
... be normative rather than optional
... once we have a consensus, it should be enforced
Norbert: trying to specify "what is a good bidi iri"
... but spoofers are not interested in "good bidi IRIs"
... so standard needs to specify what happens (reject, color
address bar)
addison: are we ready to say something (and what)
matial: way to display IRIs should become unique for all
browsers
addison; consistent, right?
matial: same IRI displayed same way in all user-agents
<matial> draft email
addison: draft email about sense of WG? or come back next week?
preference?
norbert: there is no consensus in IRI community
addison: problem is that there is diversity of opinion and
we're unlikely to achieve a consensus of "100% minus one
person"
foo/bar/baz/example.com://http
aharon: side of bus is RTL, and works when typed in, but when
some LTR thing is added to the URL, the whole thing changes
direction, alarming user
addison: some sense of a base implicit direction of LTR
aharon: anyone with a RTL domain name will be unhappy if the
domain is in LTR context
... think there will be strong objections to consistently LTR
IRIs
addison: other possibility is that it's insoluable and doesn't
get (need to get) solved
... just guidelines for IRI beauty
aharon: if you have an all RTL domain name/site name, you
should take pains to create all RTL URIs (including path)
... if you don't, it'll look ugly
... but limit to how much those guidelines will be possible to
follow
... since parts such as query can't be fully controlled
... or parts of the domain may be just an alias for an LTR name
... would be value in publishing guideline
andrew: two basic scenarios
... IRI that is fully LTR and IRI that is fully RTL---both work
consistently
... when you mix that the problem occurs
... so guidance on how to display
... and guidance to e.g. CMS developers
... so that they can implement in ways that makes sense and
works
addison: so... what to do/say at this point?
... cut to chase with "guidelines"? or "normative display"? or?
aharon: what about giving user preferences time to shake out,
give time to user testing
matial: some testing planned, but not happening yet
... users of different proficiency how they perceive IRI (such
as napkin/bus)
... or when told, how they write it
... hopefully these not-as-extensive-as-maybe-would-like will
give us a sense
... maybe get results in the next two or three months
... but may get different results
... maybe indication
... might not be perfect
... but solve simple cases
... based on TLD, which is unlikely to change
com.EGYPT
EGYPT.com
com.tpyge
<Norbert> مصر.com
norbert: e.g. if you have entirely RTL domain name, you can do
one thing
<koji> sorry, I've got go...
norbert: but also have to say how to make spoofs detected
AOB?
norbert: will there be user tests of IRIs in Arabic speaking
countries?
gwyneth: can follow up with Shawn
addison: for next time?
norbert 3987bis and ruby?
addison: no objections?
... will send links
<andrewc> مصر.com
andrew: which is TLD?
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Activity Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:22:11 UTC