- From: Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:10:55 +0800
- To: www-international@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/2023/10/12-i18n-minutes.html
text version:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
– DRAFT –
Internationalization Working Group Teleconference
12 October 2023
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2]
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/c5b143d1-0a5b-4adb-8d60-0f5f9bfe5a41/20231012T150000/
[3] https://www.w3.org/2023/10/12-i18n-irc
Attendees
Present
Addison, Atsushi, Bert, Fuqiao, JcK, Richard
Regrets
-
Chair
Addison Phillips
Scribe
xfq
Contents
1. [4]Agenda Review
2. [5]Action Items
3. [6]Info Share
4. [7]RADAR Review
5. [8]String-meta next steps
6. [9]Emphasis mark skipping
7. [10]Definition of 'string' revisited
8. [11]Review 'needs-attention' issues
9. [12]AOB?
Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
Action Items
<gb> Found actions in w3c/i18n-actions: #51, #50, #49, #48,
#47, #46, #44, #43, #42, #41, #39, #35, #33, #32, #18, #16,
#12, #11, #10, #8, #7, #5, #4
<addison> #51
<gb> [13]Action 51 inform fuqiao and richard what to name the
string-meta-2 repo (on aphillips) due 2023-10-12
[13] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/51
<addison> #50
<gb> [14]Action 50 raise TAG request about reviewing string
definitions (on aphillips) due 2023-10-12
[14] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/50
<addison> close #50
<gb> Closed [15]action #50
[15] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/50
<addison> #49
<gb> [16]Action 49 contact unicode about emphasis mark skipping
(on aphillips) due 2023-10-05
[16] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/49
<addison> close #49
<gb> Closed [17]action #49
[17] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/49
<addison> #48
<gb> [18]Action 48 work with clreq to investigate or produce a
generics proposal (on xfq) due 2023-10-05
[18] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/48
<addison> #47
<gb> [19]Action 47 make the CSSWG aware of Warichu (on frivoal)
due 2023-10-04
[19] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/47
<addison> #46
<gb> [20]Action 46 read the string-meta explainer and consider
the new approach addison proposes (on xfq, r12a) due 2023-09-28
[20] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/46
<addison> close #46
<gb> Closed [21]action #46
[21] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/46
<addison> #44
<gb> [22]Action 44 follow up on the bidi thread of rdf-star (on
r12a) due 2023-09-19
[22] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/44
<addison> #43
<gb> [23]Action 43 pull together the list of win/mac/etc apis
for setting base direction and/or language (on aphillips) due
2023-09-18
[23] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/43
<addison> #42
<gb> [24]Action 42 work on tc39 proposal (meet with addison and
eemeli to start) (on xfq) due 2023-09-18
[24] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/42
<addison> close #42
<gb> Closed [25]action #42
[25] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/42
<addison> #41
<gb> [26]Action 41 propose new specdev text on strings for xml
(on aphillips) due 2023-09-07
[26] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/41
addison: hoping to work on #43 next week
<addison> #39
<gb> [27]Action 39 develop best practice guidelines for
name-like fields (on aphillips) due 2023-08-31
[27] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/39
<addison> #35
<gb> [28]Action 35 make the edits of CSS #5478 (on fantasai)
due 2023-08-30
[28] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/35
<addison> #33
addison: xfq, please send an email to eemeli to say that we no
longer need to do this any more re #42
<gb> [29]Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG
for further review (on aphillips)
[29] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/33
xfq: will do
<addison> #32
<gb> [30]Action 32 Approve the character markup PR (on
fantasai) due 2023-08-17
[30] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/32
<addison> close #32
<gb> Closed [31]action #32
[31] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/32
addison: we did #32
r12a: we pushed some CSS to tr-design
… did that CSS include the image styling?
addison: yes
<gb> Found actions in w3c/i18n-actions: #51, #48, #47, #44,
#43, #41, #39, #35, #33, #18, #16, #12, #11, #10, #8, #7, #5,
#4
addison: we should be cool in that regard now
<addison> #18
<gb> [32]Action 18 Have informal explanation sessions about
counter style translations with csswg members (on frivoal,
fantasai)
[32] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/18
<addison> #16
<gb> [33]Action 16 Keep track of line-breaking in Korean for
i18n-discuss#11 (on aphillips)
[33] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/16
<addison> #12
<gb> [34]Action 12 Upgrade/edit the explainer to address issues
raised by google (on aphillips)
[34] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/12
<addison> #11
<gb> [35]Action 11 Triage all css properties to determine which
are logical, physical, or na by default (on frivoal)
[35] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/11
<addison> #10
<gb> [36]Action 10 With florian triage richard's article into a
list of potential generics (on frivoal, fantasai)
[36] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/10
<addison> #8
<gb> [37]Action 8 Create pr against canvas formatted text (on
aphillips)
[37] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/8
<addison> #7
<gb> [38]Action 7 Remind shepherds to tend to their awaiting
comment resolutions (Evergreen) (on aphillips, xfq, himorin,
r12a, bert-github)
[38] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/7
<addison> #5
<gb> [39]Action 5 Check into how to list questions at the top
of a digest and/or improve lang enablement communications (on
r12a)
[39] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/5
<addison> #4
<gb> [40]Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the
character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on r12a)
[40] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/4
Info Share
addison: about #4, I've recently unblocked part of it
RADAR Review
<addison> [41]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1
[41] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1
addison: we have no new incoming requests
Bert: started vc-jose-cose
… lots of technologies that are not W3C technologies that I
have to look up
… not finished
String-meta next steps
addison: last week, we discussed taking the stuff I added to
the explainer and turning those into a note
… upon reflection, my proposal is to keep string-meta as the
best practices doc and to create a requirement doc
r12a: I guess I had misunderstood what we were planning to do
last week
… I thought this was all about doing something with the
explainer
… making the explainer more focused
… I hadn't realized that you wanted to move stuff out of the
string-meta document
… I still think the explainer is needed, but it needs to be way
way way shorter than what we currently have
… I think some of the stuff that we have in the explainer is
like an FAQ
… we could restructure string-meta a little
… I would have thought that if we have the introduction
followed by some text that says this is the stuff you really
need to read
… we don't necessarily have to move the rest of the stuff out
addison: I can make structural changes
… we don't have to move things out of there unless they're
distracting
… the best practices section i think needs a massive rewrite in
light of the changes that we want to make
… given that we're doing something different than the explainer
originally did
… the rewrite of the explainer should make it much cleaner
r12a: the audience for the explainer is kind of different from
the string-meta document
… I think it would be clear to be clear about what the audience
is
… string-meta is kind of general purpose for anybody
… it has all the information that you would need
… the explainer is useful for TC39
… my question is what are we trying to do with the explainer?
… do we need more than one explainer?
addison: should these be articles?
r12a: yeah
addison: OK, so let's do this
… I think we need to change string-meta because that's the core
document
… and redo the explainer so it's focused in the right way
… and the third thing is to decide a durable location
… I don't think a github markdown page is the right location
… maybe let's fix the explainer first
… explaining language metadata is relatively straightforward
… it's not a huge thing
… but explaining bidi seems to be a full-time job
[42]Explainer
[42]
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/blob/gh-pages/explainers/string-meta-explainer-updated.md
r12a: the WG-specific stuff targeting a particular audience is
perhaps enough for another explainer
addison: agreed
… in the current explainer there's a section that says what are
"spillover effects"
… that whole thing probably just goes away
r12a: I was going to say that you do have some other useful
stuff like what we want TC39 and Ecma to do
… that's really useful
addison: I'll take the action to fix the explainer
r12a: the first thing is to decide who's the audience for the
explainer
… and whether we need one or more
… and then fix the explainer to meet the audience
addison: I agree
… we need to do some work on organizing the documents
Emphasis mark skipping
<addison> [43]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0013.html
[43]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0013.html
addison: did everybody follow that thread?
<addison> [44]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0011.html
[44]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0011.html
<addison> [45]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0011.html
[45]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2023OctDec/0011.html
addison: Ken and Robin Leroy replied to my email
… basically I asked Unicode if they wanted to keep track of
character property for emphasis mark skipping
… and the answer was approximately no
… and more specifically, it sounds like someone could write a
Unicode technical note
… someone in this case means CSS
r12a: Unicode folks might start more technical notes as well
… like how to implement Kashmiri
addison: the process is not clear
… and the learning curve is steep
r12a: note sure if it's that complicated
… they don't require a particular format
… you can publish an HTML page and link to it
Definition of 'string' revisited
<addison> [46]w3c/bp-i18n-specdev#117
[46] https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/117
r12a: you can see the technical notes written by Norbert
Lindenberg, for example
… just produce something similar to that
<addison> [47]https://
deploy-preview-117--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_string
[47]
https://deploy-preview-117--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_string
addison: have a look and see what you think
… the difference here mainly is I pulled the mustard to the
front
… which is our style
… and then the explanatory text
r12a: I thought we were going to say use USVString unless you
need to use DOMString
addison: I'm reluctant to break that for the moment
… in the HTML space and the JS space, you pretty much want to
use DOMStrings
… but everywhere else it's wrong
… is that the only thing that's wrong with this section?
r12a: it just seems kind of weird to dogmatically state the
opposite of what we think really should be the case
… or make it clear this is a preliminary guideline based on the
current TAG practice
addison: trying to fixing the linking in i18n-glossary
<r12a> [48]https://respec.org/xref/?term=UTF-16&types=_CONCEPT_
[48] https://respec.org/xref/?term=UTF-16&types=_CONCEPT_
xfq: it could be a bug in ReSpec
addison: could be
xfq: if we want to link to it in other specs, we need to use
class="export"
… like <dfn class="export">UTF-16</dfn>
Review 'needs-attention' issues
<addison> gb, list open issues from w3c/i18n-activity with
label needs-attention
<gb> addison, sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do.
Maybe try "help"?
<r12a> gb, list open issues from w3c/i18n-activity
<addison> gb, list open issues with label needs-attention from
w3c/i18n-activity
<gb> addison, sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do.
Maybe try "help"?
<addison> [49]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/
issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aneeds-attention
[49]
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:needs-attention
<addison> [50]w3c/i18n-activity#1758
[50] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1758
<gb> [51]Issue 1758 Reference for punycode-encoding of IDN (by
w3cbot) [tracker] [needs-attention] [s:rdf-concepts]
[51] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1758
<addison> [52]w3c/rdf-concepts#63
[52] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/63
<gb> [53]Issue 63 Reference for punycode-encoding of IDN (by
domel) [i18n-tracker] [spec:substantive]
[53] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/63
addison: do we need to change this to needs-resolution?
JcK: almost any time you talk about Punycode you're saying
something wrong
… but I don't quite understand what the issue is here
<Bert> gb, list open issues with label needs-attention from
REPO w3c/i18n-activity
<gb> Found issues in w3c/i18n-activity: #1758, #1560, #1361,
#1026, #980, #809, #765, #590, #506, #404, #370, #259, #258,
#219, #216, #98, #78, #46, #8
addison: RDF has a bunch of stuff about URL resolution
<addison> [54]w3c/i18n-activity#1560
[54] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1560
<gb> [55]Issue 1560 support Unicode(or UTF-8 encoded)
identifiers (by w3cbot) [close?] [tracker] [needs-attention]
[s:wasm-core] [t:char_ranges] [t:markup_identifiers]
[55] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1560
<addison> [56]WebAssembly/spec#830
[56] https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/830
<gb> [57]CLOSED Issue 830 support Unicode(or UTF-8 encoded)
identifiers (by Zhang-Junzhi) [future feature] [i18n-tracker]
[57] https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/830
addison: this is an issue they created themselves, xfq
discovered and tracked
… I don't think we have enough information to keep it open
xfq: do we have guidelines in specdev about Unicode
identifiers?
addison: it's good to allow them to be non-ASCII
r12a: I'm not sure the WG decided against it
<addison> [58]https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/
issues?q=is%3Aissue+unicode+names
[58]
https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues?q=is:issue+unicode+names
r12a: it sounded more to me like there's not enough interest
… what's the status of the document?
xfq: [59]https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-1/ is REC
… [60]https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-2/ is FPWD
[59] https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-1/
[60] https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-2/
Transition request: [61]w3c/transitions#119
[61] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/119
<gb> [62]CLOSED Issue 119 [WASM] CR transition for WebAssembly
Core Specification (by ericprud) [Entering CR] [Awaiting
Editor] [Awaiting Team Contact]
[62] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/119
Received on Friday, 13 October 2023 02:10:57 UTC