[minutes] Internationalization telecon 2024-03-28

https://www.w3.org/2024/03/28-i18n-minutes.html





text version:

                              – DRAFT –
            Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

28 March 2024

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d544156-352c-46f2-b6ec-383b4e2462fb/20240328T150000/
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2024/03/28-i18n-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Addison, Bert, JcK, Richard, xfq

    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]Pending Issue Review
     6. [9]FPWD of Khmer Layout Requirements
     7. [10]MathML review
     8. [11]RFC9457 and string-meta
     9. [12]String-meta best practices for producers
    10. [13]Specdev changes to support IDNs
    11. [14][Tanych/accept-language] I18N objections to reducing
        accept-language
    12. [15]AOB?
    13. [16]Summary of action items
    14. [17]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Agenda Review

   Action Items

    <addison> #85

    <gb> [18]Action 85 send a note to privacy folks saying we did a
    review with notes about i18n (on aphillips) due 2024-03-28

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/85

    <addison> #84

    <gb> [19]Action 84 follow up on i18n-glossary#51 (on r12a) due
    2024-03-21

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/84

    r12a: re #84, I wrote what I think we should do in the issue
    and somebody needs to do it

    <addison> #82

    <gb> [20]Action 82 publish khmer lreq with new format (on r12a)
    due 2024-03-21

      [20] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/82

    <addison> #79

    <gb> [21]Action 79 schedule a follow-up call with WHATNOT in
    ~April (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/79

    <addison> #78

    <gb> [22]Action 78 compare infra to i18n-glossary export list
    and report back (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

      [22] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/78

    <addison> #77

    <gb> [23]Action 77 create an issue against html requesting the
    list of named entities based on work in action 73 (on r12a) due
    2024-03-07

      [23] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/77

    <r12a> [24]w3c/i18n-activity#1841

      [24] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1841

    <gb> [25]Issue 1841 Request for additional named entities for
    invisible/ambiguous characters (by r12a) [pending] [s:html]
    [t:char_ref]

      [25] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1841

    r12a: re #77, I have created a pending issue for people to look
    at

    <addison> #76

    <gb> [26]Action 76 propose best practices for producers and for
    examples in specs in string-meta (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

      [26] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/76

    <addison> #75

    <gb> [27]Action 75 work on developing new specdev material
    about IDNs/domain names/etc. (on xfq) due 2024-02-29

      [27] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/75

    <addison> #43

    <gb> [28]Action 43 pull together the list of win/mac/etc apis
    for setting base direction and/or language (on aphillips) due
    2023-09-18

      [28] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/43

    <addison> #33

    <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

    <addison> #12

    <gb> [30]Action 12 Upgrade/edit the explainer to address issues
    raised by google (on aphillips) due 18 Jul 2023

      [30] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/12

    addison: re #12, I think I'm done editing the explainer

    <addison> #8

    <gb> [31]Action 8 Follow up on the status of Canvas and
    formatted text (on aphillips) due 18 Jul 2023

      [31] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/8

    addison: we can review it again together in an upcoming call

    <addison> #4

    <gb> [32]Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the
    character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on r12a) due
    27 Jul 2023

      [32] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/4

    <r12a> [33]w3c/respec#4462

      [33] https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/4462

    <gb> [34]Issue 4462 Provide a shortcut for typing character
    markup (by r12a) [Feature request]

      [34] https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/4462

    r12a: re #4, seems to be potentially making some progress, see
    ^

   Info Share

    JcK: more colors and cuter fonts in the new IRC client

   RADAR Review

    [GB 18030 discussions]

    <addison> [35]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1

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

   Pending Issue Review

    <addison> [36]w3c/i18n-activity#1841

      [36] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1841

    <gb> [37]Issue 1841 Request for additional named entities for
    invisible/ambiguous characters (by r12a) [pending] [s:html]
    [t:char_ref]

      [37] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1841

   FPWD of Khmer Layout Requirements

    <r12a4> [38]https://w3c.github.io/sealreq/khmer/indexnew.html

      [38] https://w3c.github.io/sealreq/khmer/indexnew.html

    addison: r12a, you want to propose the first draft note of the
    Khmer Layout Requirements, correct?

    r12a: correct

    <r12a4> [39]https://w3c.github.io/sealreq/khmer/index.html

      [39] https://w3c.github.io/sealreq/khmer/index.html

    r12a: see ^

    addison: we need to vote on publishing this

    <xfq> +1

    <addison> +1

    <r12a4> +1

    <Bert> +1

    <JcK> 0

    <r12a4> [40]https://w3c.github.io/tlreq/index.html

      [40] https://w3c.github.io/tlreq/index.html

    <JcK> Have not been able to find time to review

    RESOLUTION: publish Khmer Layout Requirements as FPWD

    <r12a4> [41]https://w3c.github.io/tlreq/indexnew.html

      [41] https://w3c.github.io/tlreq/indexnew.html

    r12a: here's another link for Tibetan
    … I'm doing the same for Tibetan
    … I realised that I wasn't gonna put the links at the bottom of
    the section
    … I was going to put them at the top of the section
    … because that's more useful and clear

   MathML review

    addison: cool. Thank you.

    <addison> [42]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/
    issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apending+label%3As%3Amathm
    l

      [42] 
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:pending+label:s:mathml

    <addison> #1834

    <gb> Issue 1834 not found

    <addison> [43]w3c/i18n-activity#1834

      [43] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1834

    <gb> [44]Issue 1834 Clarify note on single character of mi as
    italic (by himorin) [pending] [s:mathml] [wg:math]

      [44] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1834

    Bert: about #1834, it's not quite clear what the spec is saying
    … whether it's a letter
    … as far as I'm concerned, the example is allowed to be a
    little less precise than the normative text

    <JcK> Richard, once the Tibetan version is ready to be made a
    bit more public, I probably have a lead on good reviewers who
    read and write the language daily are are very concerned about
    it.

    <addison> ... On text nodes containing a single characters
    (after whitespace has been removed)...

    Bert: @@1

    <addison> [45]w3c/i18n-activity#1837

      [45] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1837

    <gb> [46]Issue 1837 lspace/rspace have confusing names (by
    bert-github) [pending] [s:mathml]

      [46] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1837

    Bert: the lspace and rspace attributes in mathml are very old
    … they're already in the first mathml which is 20+ years old
    … they are now logical
    … so we could add a note to say that it's not physical

    <Bert> [47]https://www.w3.org/TR/mathml-core/#layout-of-mrow

      [47] https://www.w3.org/TR/mathml-core/#layout-of-mrow

    Bert: 2 possible places, the first intro of the attributes
    … or how it is laid out

    <addison> [48]w3c/i18n-activity#1838

      [48] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1838

    <gb> [49]Issue 1838 Whether/when to mirror operators (by
    bert-github) [pending] [s:mathml]

      [49] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1838

    addison: objections?

    Bert: certain operators are mirrored in rtl formulas
    … mathml doesn't mention this

    <addison> [50]w3/i18n-activity#1839

      [50] https://github.com/w3/i18n-activity/issues/1839

    <gb> Issue 1839 not found

    <addison> [51]w3c/i18n-activity#1839

      [51] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1839

    <gb> [52]Issue 1839 Define that (and how) glyph assemblies are
    mirrored in rtl formulas (by bert-github) [pending] [s:mathml]

      [52] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1839

    Bert: @@2
    … There is a document on the Unicode site

    [53]https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/
    22026r-non-bidi-mirroring.pdf

      [53] https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/22026r-non-bidi-mirroring.pdf

    Bert: from Kent Karlsson
    … from 2 years ago

    ACTION: addison: ping the UTC about the status of the mirroring
    proposal

    <gb> Created [54]action #86

      [54] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/86

    Bert: talks exactly about these extension characters
    … but I haven't found any other reference to that

    <addison> [55]w3c/i18n-activity#1840

      [55] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1840

    <gb> [56]Issue 1840 Explain the mapping tables (appendix C) (by
    bert-github) [pending] [s:mathml]

      [56] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1840

    Bert: the MathML3 spec and the MathML Core spec are not
    consistent
    … it's a bit unclear
    … my question is what are those tables for
    … are they indeed for that purpose and why
    … if so, why doesn't the spec say that they are for that
    purpose?
    … why are those tables are there?

   RFC9457 and string-meta

    <addison> RFC9457 defines a JSON (and alternate XML) structure
    for returning error information. Seems like they could follow
    our guidance in string-meta and include lang/dir metadata in
    the document. They do provide for localization externally by
    doing language negotiation off of Accept-Language, but it seems
    criminal not to tell the recipient what language

    <addison> was negotiated??

    addison: RFC 9457 describes a JSON structure and separately in
    XML for responding with additional info when an error is
    produced
    … for example, if you produce the forbidden HTTP response it
    could include human readable description of what was forbidden
    and why
    … like your password was wrong or something like that
    … that standard does not include any language or direction
    annotation for the human language strings
    … it seems like it ought to
    … there doesn't seem to be a reason not to provide it

    ACTION: addison: write to IETF ADs about RFC9457 with JcK's
    assistance

    <gb> Created [57]action #87

      [57] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/87

    <addison> rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457.html

   String-meta best practices for producers

    <addison> [58]w3c/string-meta#86

      [58] https://github.com/w3c/string-meta/pull/86

    <gb> [59]Pull Request 86 Add best practices for writing
    examples and for producers (by aphillips)

      [59] https://github.com/w3c/string-meta/pull/86

    <addison> [60]https://
    deploy-preview-86--string-meta.netlify.app/#bp-producers

      [60] 
https://deploy-preview-86--string-meta.netlify.app/#bp-producers

    addison: I had an action item to write best practices for
    writing examples and for producers
    … I welcome comments on it

   Specdev changes to support IDNs

    <addison> [61]w3c/bp-i18n-specdev#128

      [61] https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/128

    <gb> [62]Pull Request 128 New section about IDNs (by xfq)

      [62] https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/128

    <addison> [63]https://
    deploy-preview-128--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#idn

      [63] https://deploy-preview-128--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#idn

   [Tanych/accept-language] I18N objections to reducing accept-language

    xfq: not ready for review yet

    <addison> [64]Tanych/accept-language#10 (comment)

      [64] 
https://github.com/Tanych/accept-language/issues/10#issuecomment-2018872665

    <gb> [65]Issue 10 I18N objections to reducing accept-language
    (by aphillips)

      [65] https://github.com/Tanych/accept-language/issues/10

    addison: some time ago, there's a proposal to reduce
    accept-language to a single value

    <addison> [66]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
    public-i18n-core/2024JanMar/0114.html

      [66] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2024JanMar/0114.html

    addison: I was actioned at some point to reply to them saying
    we don't think that's a great idea
    … with 2 comments
    … safari users can only have one language preference
    … the second comment is: can you give me any site or code
    example to understand better about the accept-language use
    cases for i18n?

    <r12a-webkit> [67]https://www.w3.org/International/
    articlelist#navigating

      [67] https://www.w3.org/International/articlelist#navigating

    addison: do we have an article about language negotiation
    somewhere?
    … I haven't looked at it in a while

    r12a-webkit: there's a bunch of stuff here ^
    … there is even an article called Accept-Language used for
    locale setting

    addison: the stuff here hasn't been updated in a while

    addison: I have a long thing that I wrote outside of standards
    land about language negotiation
    … which with only a little bit of work could probably be
    adapted appropriately
    … I don't have time right now, though

    r12a-webkit: why do they want to do that?

    xfq: to reduce fingerprinting

    addison: the A-L header is potentially a fingerprinting vector
    because if you put enough things in it, it could be unique

   AOB?

    xfq: @@

Summary of action items

     1. [68]addison: ping the UTC about the status of the mirroring
        proposal
     2. [69]addison: write to IETF ADs about RFC9457 with JcK's
        assistance

Summary of resolutions

     1. [70]publish Khmer Layout Requirements as FPWD

Received on Friday, 29 March 2024 07:30:54 UTC