- From: Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:00:31 +0800
- To: www-international@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-i18n-minutes.html text version: – DRAFT – Internationalization Working Group Teleconference 24 April 2025 [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/b7edae68-f52c-4aab-a1a6-3c37459e0786/20250424T150000/ [3] https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-i18n-irc Attendees Present addison, atsushi, Bert, Daniel, Helen, Kathy, r12a, Sage, Wilco, xfq Regrets - Chair Addison Phillips Scribe xfq Contents 1. [4]WCAG-ACT Joint Meeting 2. [5]Agenda Review 3. [6]Action Items 4. [7]Info Share 5. [8]Review RADAR 6. [9]Pending Issue Review 7. [10]WebNN 8. [11]Notification Email Changes 9. [12]Specdev "isomorphic string" PR 10. [13]Summary of action items Meeting minutes WCAG-ACT Joint Meeting [self-introduction] <addison> [14]w3c/wcag-act#572 [14] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/572 <gb> [15]Issue 572 How are rule identifiers matched to one another? (by bert-github) [i18n-needs-resolution] [15] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/572 addison: we did an i18n review of the ACT rules a while ago … an open issue ^ … we have some other open issues that we might look at if there's interest and time … it says "This identifier must be unique when the rule is part of a ruleset" … our comment on that is uniqueness can be challenging in a Unicode context <Wilco> [16]https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/593/files [16] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/593/files <gb> [17]Pull Request 593 Qualify identifier uniqueness prose (by daniel-montalvo) [17] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/593 addison: ACT rule doesn't define how an ACT rule is written … it's not a file format … so you can write ACT rules in a number of different ways … these are the things that you need to have in a successful ACT rule Wilco: yeah addison: you don't define how the identifiers are created … the challenge is how to tell people how to meet the reqs … we have a really long document about identifiers and checking uniqueness called charmod-norm Wilco: we anticipated different groups writing their own rule sets potentially addison: a weak must is a should addison: because you don't specify what the format is … or a rule set is, you can't say how the uniqueness is determined … a rule set could be case insensitive, which would make uppercase and lowercase versions of English words the same Wilco: yeah addison: but it's up to whoever's writing the rule set to ensure the uniqueness of rule ids … and you might want to say that straight out <addison> > An ACT Rule <em class="rfc2119">must</em> have an identifier that is a unique string of unicode characters. The identifier can be any text, such as a lower case ascii string, URL, or a database identifier. Wilco: I don't understand what might not work about what we're proposing in PR 593 addison: I think you want to stay out of getting too specific … my tendency would just be it should be unique within a rule set Wilco: yeah Wilco: I left a comment on [18]https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/ pull/593#discussion_r2058569066 [18] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/593#discussion_r2058569066 <gb> [19]Pull Request 593 Qualify identifier uniqueness prose (by daniel-montalvo) [19] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/593 addison: that looks good JcK: you're walking along the edge of a cliff … because the moment somebody has to start matching what appears in the rule set to something which appears somewhere else … you suddenly jump into all the difficulties about matching a pair of Unicode identifiers Wilco: you're right, we're aware … if there was a thousand orgs writing rules and they were each writing a thousand rules we might have a problem here … but it's not a thing we ever expect to happen JcK: in reality it doesn't require 1000, it requires about three addison: do you want a health warning? … I think this is probably fine <addison> [20]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/ issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3As%3Aact-rules-form at [20] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is:issue state:open label:s:act-rules-format <Wilco> [21]w3c/wcag-act#574 [21] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/574 <gb> [22]Issue 574 Is the ‘descriptive title’ used for matching? (by bert-github) [i18n-needs-resolution] [22] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/574 Daniel: I propose to close this … We are not using the descriptive title for matching Kathy: have you all looked at 573? [23]w3c/wcag-act#573 [23] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/573 <gb> [24]CLOSED Issue 573 ACT does not require that the language of text is indicated (by bert-github) [i18n-needs-resolution] [24] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/573 <addison> [25]https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/592/files [25] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/592/files <gb> [26]MERGED Pull Request 592 Qualify "writing direction" statement (by daniel-montalvo) [26] https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/592 addison: 592 closed it, we haven't reviewed that yet Wilco: it might be good to just go over all of these too … make sure we're all on the same page and can move forward addison: it seems to address our comment … you don't specify a file format, so you don't say what form the metadata takes Wilco: so I think we covered all issues … it depends on whatever format you implemented in … which is a browser xfq: should we close our tracker issues? addison: once they merge the PR addison: don't touch the horizontal review labels because they're how the automation works … you just close it Daniel: thank you for your comments [ACT folks leave] Agenda Review Action Items <addison> [27]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues [27] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues <addison> #167 <gb> [28]Action 167 file issue(s) against limiting-local-font-access (on aphillips) due 2025-04-24 [28] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/167 <addison> close #167 <gb> Closed [29]issue #167 [29] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/167 <addison> #165 <gb> [30]Action 165 add a conformance section to suppress the respec warning to specdev (on aphillips) due 2025-04-10 [30] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/165 addison: #165, when you do that it causes our spec to blow up <addison> #162 <gb> [31]Action 162 poll I18N/CSS for new day/time (on aphillips) due 2025-03-25 [31] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/162 <addison> #157 <gb> [32]Action 157 write glossary proposal identifying options and next steps for those options (on aphillips) due 2025-02-20 [32] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/157 addison: because we have all mustard in non-normative sections <addison> #135 <gb> [33]Action 135 follow up on XR issue 1393 about locale in session (on aphillips) due 2024-10-17 [33] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/135 addison: so I didn't do that <addison> #127 <gb> [34]Action 127 make a list of shared topics of interest between TG2 and W3C-I18N (on aphillips) due 2024-09-30 [34] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/127 <addison> #89 <gb> [35]Action 89 update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18 [35] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/89 ACTION: xfq: add instructions on dark mode to i18n-editors <gb> Created [36]action #168 [36] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/168 <addison> #33 <gb> [37]Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips) [37] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/33 <addison> #7 <gb> [38]Action 7 Remind shepherds to tend to their awaiting comment resolutions (Evergreen) (on aphillips, xfq, himorin, r12a, bert-github) due 18 Jul 2023 [38] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/7 <addison> #4 <gb> [39]Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on aphillips) due 27 Jul 2023 [39] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/4 Info Share r12a: how do you turn on the dark mode? addison: in specdev if you were looking at the preview in the lower left corner there's a little icon you see the sun and moon thing [40]https://deploy-preview-130--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/ [40] https://deploy-preview-130--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/ r12a: all right, I see it Review RADAR <addison> [41]https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91/views/1 [41] https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91/views/1 Pending Issue Review <addison> [42]https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/ issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apending [42] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:pending [43]w3c/i18n-activity#2001 [43] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/2001 <gb> [44]Issue 2001 Reduce Accept-Language (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [ietf] [s:http] [44] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/2001 addison: I have a sense of wanting to escalate this with us … any objection to making this needs-resolution? … done <addison> [45]explainers-by-googlers/reduce-accept-language#10 [45] https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/reduce-accept-language/issues/10 <gb> [46]Issue 10 I18N objections to reducing accept-language (by aphillips) [46] https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/reduce-accept-language/issues/10 WebNN [47]webmachinelearning/webnn#837 (comment) [47] https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn/issues/837#issuecomment-2815870541 <gb> [48]Issue 837 String metadata and localization for operator labels (by xfq) [i18n-needs-resolution] [48] https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn/issues/837 [xfq introduces the issue] xfq: it doesn't look like natural language string … like "[49]mul#1234" [49] https://github.com/w3c/mul/issues/1234 <gb> Issue 1234 not found xfq: should we ask them to add a note to clarify this? addison: if it's an identifier then identifierish things should be applied to it … for example Trojan Source stuff … if you display this value you should guard against bad labels … these are for consumption by people, but they are meant to be identifiers xfq: yeah Notification Email Changes r12a: I just want to rejig things slightly … currently if you're subscribed to the winter list you receive 0 or 2 digests a day … one is called reviews and the other one is called something like WG issues … I want to make it three … a maximum of three … one would be called review comments … one would be called WG projects … the other one would be called language enablement … and then we separate out the LE stuff … from the WG project … splitting that out from the WG project like specdev and charmod stuff … split i18n repos into two … one is WG project, the other one is LE addison: would this affect the public list? r12a: yes … public-i18n-core list and the winter list addison: any objection? … martin made a comment on this r12a: he seemed to be barking up the wrong tree to me … he asked how many subscribers each list has and I replied to that … you're not getting more content in the emails … the amount of content is still the same … just splitting things … which actually makes it easier for people because if you're not interested in LE you just delete that digest and you focus on the WG projects and vice versa Specdev "isomorphic string" PR <addison> [50]https:// deploy-preview-158--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char-string-by te-oriented [50] https://deploy-preview-158--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char-string-byte-oriented addison: I have a PR where I've started working on address the last bits of our comments with TAG about their design principles … and I'm having a conversation with annevk in the course of doing this … because of the weirdness of bytestring in webidl … isomorphic string is where you take the byte and you turn it into a Unicode code point … 0x80 becomes code point 80 … I understand why, but they don't say that anywhere … send your comments Bert: a couple of holidays coming up, I won't be here next week and the week after Summary of action items 1. [51]xfq: add instructions on dark mode to i18n-editors
Received on Monday, 28 April 2025 03:00:46 UTC