[minutes] i18n telecon 2012-06-13


Text version follows:

Internationalization Core Working Group Teleconference

13 Jun 2012



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-i18n-irc


           koji, aphillip, matial, andrewc, Gwyneth,
           +972.7.474.6aaaa, +1.415.885.aabb, Norbert


           Addison Phillips

           Addison Phillips


      * [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


      [12] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-09


      [13] http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-00


      [14] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-11


      [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-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

    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?

    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


    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

    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
    ... 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
    ... 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

    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




    <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


    norbert: will there be user tests of IRIs in Arabic speaking

    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)


Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 10:22:11 UTC