- 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