W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2020

[minutes] Internationalization telecon 2020-04-09

From: r12a <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:54:02 +0100
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <b819bd48-0bff-2597-5c52-f18a14bb44c4@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/2020/04/09-i18n-minutes.html






text version follows:



- DRAFT -

            Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

09 Apr 2020

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2020Apr/0005.html

Attendees

    Present
           addison, fuqiao, atsushi, Bert, richard, Felix, JcK

    Regrets

    Chair
           Addison Phillips

    Scribe
           addison

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Agenda and Minutes
          2. [5]Action Items
          3. [6]Info Share
          4. [7]RADAR Review
          5. [8]Consider Simple-Ruby for wide review
          6. [9]Language/direction metadata in RDF-related specs
          7. [10]CSS generic fonts
          8. [11]AOB?
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      * [13]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    trackbot, parepare teleconference

    <trackbot> Sorry, addison, I don't understand 'trackbot,
    parepare teleconference'. Please refer to
    <[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

    trackbot, prepare teleconference

    <scribe> scribenick: addison

    <agendabot> clear agenda

Agenda and Minutes

Action Items

    [15]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/open

      [15] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/open

    action-870?

    <trackbot> action-870 -- Addison Phillips to Write scope
    statement for locale-related work -- due 2020-03-19 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [16]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/870

      [16] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/870

    close action-870

    <trackbot> Closed action-870.

    action-872?

    <trackbot> action-872 -- Addison Phillips to Convert
    personalization-semantics comments into separate issues putting
    needs-resolution and tracker labels -- due 2020-03-26 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [17]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/872

      [17] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/872

    close action-872

    <trackbot> Closed action-872.

    action-881?

    <trackbot> action-881 -- Richard Ishida to Set up simple-ruby
    repo -- due 2020-04-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [18]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/881

      [18] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/881

    close action-881

    <trackbot> Closed action-881.

    action-884?

    <trackbot> action-884 -- Addison Phillips to Revise comment in
    issue 871 for consideration next week -- due 2020-04-09 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [19]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/884

      [19] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/884

    close action-884

    <trackbot> Closed action-884.

    action-885?

    <trackbot> action-885 -- Felix Sasaki to Investigate if any
    more work needs doing in rdf for language and direction
    metadata -- due 2020-04-09 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [20]https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/885

      [20] https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/885

    close action-885

    <trackbot> Closed action-885.

Info Share

    xfq: as you may know, the next version of Unicode to be
    released in september instead of march

    <xfq> Virtual FTF on font fingerprinting on 4/14
    [21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020AprJun/
    0017.html

      [21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2020AprJun/0017.html

    xfq: css wg will hold a f2f on font fingerprinting next week
    ... since we've discussed before, if interested, can talk to
    alan to invite you

    jck: you mean the next major version of unicode is 14 in
    september 2021

    xfq: correct

RADAR Review

    [22]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1

      [22] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1

Consider Simple-Ruby for wide review

    richard: jlreq had an ad hoc meeting to discuss aims and
    objectives of doc
    ... became clear that there was not yet consensus
    ... result of meeting was agreed to publish doc
    ... but kobayashi-sensei will provide text for the intro
    explaining how doc is positioned
    ... and there are a few odds and ends
    ... wrote back and asked "what's the outlook"
    ... haven't heard back yet (this is just today)
    ... so small delay

Language/direction metadata in RDF-related specs

    felix: found that there is no standards group/body taking up
    issue
    ... had most feedback from ontolex
    ... their impression is they see bcp47 lacks granularity in
    some areas
    ... such as diachronic variations of a language
    ... they said defining uris would be a way to fill gap
    ... browsed examples they gave
    ... in these cases a lot of additional information was given
    ... with uris, you can add addition info, e.g. location, number
    speakers, etc.
    ... the argumentation about validation
    ... such as combination of subtags; I argued that bcp47 ABNF
    allows vast number of combinations
    ... the "here we go again", it's a long discussion and not a
    clear group of stakeholders
    ... speaking in terms of W3C, there is no industry group.
    mostly academics

    richard: part of concern is that, reading through threads
    ... they don't understand bcp47 terribly well
    ... for example one person suggested iso639, not understanding
    that number of subtags there is only part
    ... "can you validate", etc.
    ... how can we better education?
    ... we talked about the infinity of URIs might be worked around
    with one per subtag
    ... it would be a large number but not an infinitude

    jck: to describe a language you'd need several URIs instead of
    just a tag

    richard: they weren't suggesting a solution per se

    felix: same issues; a lot of education needed
    ... on argument that I don't have answer for is dischronic
    variants
    ... also academic corpus, might need additional info
    ... private use for accepted varieties
    ... hard to get academic communities to get them to register
    subtags, etc.
    ... currently users are global usership while academics are
    narrow

    addison: sounds like an extension or a side-standard; not like
    639 solves this for them

    felix: bcp47 community doesn't need URIs either
    ... just validate or use registry
    ... from an accepted standards body, counterpart for registry
    in URIs
    ... bcp47 community that is *not* fragmented
    ... would not be a big deal to create URIs for subtag
    ... if from accepted standards body, could foster accpetance

    jck: not clear what their problem is
    ... what could come back to, end up with a lot more URIs than
    expected
    ... representation might be matter of taste
    ... don't understand problem

    felix: having URI embedded instead of string

    jck: invent a syntax with the tag in the tail and then we move
    along :-)

    richard: one of the main reasons was tools and specs don't say
    how you could do this thing

    jck: two ways; put tag in tail or turn into set of name-value
    pairs
    ... if we need to make a (very short) doc pushed through

    richard: one of the issues I seem to perceive
    ... bcp47 was not perceived as accurate enough or specific
    enough
    ... but a problem with that people who use bcp47 use it in a
    non-specific way
    ... can be ambiguous
    ... I wrote a doc about Kurdish in Arabic and then in
    Devanagari script
    ... and I use bcp47. I don't say ks-Arab in one and ks-Deva in
    the other because don't need to
    ... if in same document, then I might need to
    ... so the tag I use is 'ks'
    ... and that's perfectly valid. Don't have to be overly
    specific and it's application specific
    ... more problematic vs. very specific URLs

    addison: problem is that there isn't a way to use @lang or @dir
    in RDF so we have a gap linking standards together; what to do?

    felix: could invite christian to a following call

    addison: we're public and could talk to other groups
    ... sense of WG? want to?

    richard: one worry is that discuss is in email; can we move to
    github?
    ... had a look at ontolex, but didn't see where to discuss
    there

    felix: github makes sense
    ... could also make discussion in github first

    <scribe> ACTION: fsasaki: create github issue to discuss RDF
    bcp47 issue in i18n-discuss repo

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-886 - Create github issue to discuss
    rdf bcp47 issue in i18n-discuss repo [on Felix Sasaki - due
    2020-04-16].

    <r12a> [23]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/issues

      [23] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/issues

CSS generic fonts

    [24]https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910

      [24] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4910

    (addison summarizes)

    richard: did you read the discuss from fantasai?
    ... (quoting from link) create generic names for unicode
    ranges? or script codes?

    <xfq>
    [25]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2020Feb/0013
    .html

      [25] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2020Feb/0013.html

    <xfq> link from fantasai ^

    richard: thinking of shoe-horning into existing categories and
    also thinking of new categories
    ... thinking that new keywords that are particular to script
    needs is better
    ... so naskh and nastaliq and ruqah for arabic; slanted/upright
    for thai/khmer, etc.
    ... a whole bunch of scripts that you use the different writing
    style for particular purpose
    ... semantic like heading vs. body
    ... or want text to look in partiular way
    ... think that if you put stuff on web and don't have font you
    need on user system
    ... should look for another font of similar type
    ... maintains the distinction

    xfq: if generic fonts installed, no need to make network
    request for webfont

    jck: remembering discussions in another context
    ... they have no idea what they are getting into
    ... deciding what font is a substitute for another is difficult
    ... requires magic

    richard: wrote a post in one of these threads
    ... first knee jerk reaction is that browsers have to make a
    list of fonts
    ... not sure that's necessary
    ... know and can classify system fonts or choose one; leave
    open to user who cares to customize
    ... I think we do choose sans/serif as a default
    ... difficult for average English-speaker to understand e.g.
    arabic script choices, but not for them

    jck: can get into trouble, such as quranic example

    <atsushi> (actually, same for me...)

    richard: css meeting upcoming, perhaps book a slot

    xfq: the fingerprinting or next v-f2f?

    richard: next v-f2f, which is different

    xfq: can add

    jck: make distinction between type style family and a font is
    useful

    richard: and a writing style yet again

    <scribe> ACTION: xfq: request a slot to discuss generic font
    family rules in next css virtual f2f

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-887 - Request a slot to discuss
    generic font family rules in next css virtual f2f [on Fuqiao
    Xue - due 2020-04-16].

AOB?

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: fsasaki: create github issue to discuss RDF bcp47
    issue in i18n-discuss repo
    [NEW] ACTION: xfq: request a slot to discuss generic font
    family rules in next css virtual f2f

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2020 15:54:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 9 April 2020 15:54:11 UTC