Internationalization Working Group Teleconference - 04 December 2025

https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-i18n-minutes.html


Here is the meeting summary:

Quick recap

The WG discussed meeting recording protocols and reviewed the agenda, which covered various topics including action items, info share, and special topics on Ruby Markup Extension Spec and Sustainable Web Issue 170. They reviewed progress on pending items, discussed tracking and advancing an explainer for message resources, and assigned reviews for RDF specifications. The WG addressed issues related to EPUB proposals, Ruby text-to-speech explainer, and the Ruby specification, discussing publishing options and rechartering the working group to enable the publication of Rec Track documents.

Next steps

Addison: topbox Eemeli the email about ECMA 402 repos tracking
Addison: drop Philippe an email about XML errata mechanism
Joel: review RDF core spec and SPARQL spec together by January 22nd
xfq: review RDF concepts spec by January 22nd
Addison: follow up on EPUB issue 2055 regarding RDF's special encoding of base direction
Eemeli: iterate on message resources explainer to address xfq's concerns before external review
Florian: craft transition request for HTML Ruby spec working draft publication
xfq: start the rechartering process to allow REC track document production
Summary

Meeting Recording and Agenda Review

The team discussed meeting recording protocols, with Florian emphasizing that any recording must be announced at the start with details on storage and sharing, and participants must have the option to opt out. They reviewed the agenda, which included nine items including action items, info share, and special topics on Ruby Markup Extension Spec and Sustainable Web Issue 170. The team confirmed that members had read the Sustainable Web document and discussed the Ruby accessibility document.

Team Progress and Task Updates

The team discussed several pending items, including a pull request from Atsushi and Martin's task to create a list of URL standard gaps. They reviewed progress on ECMA repo automation, with Addison planning to follow up with Philippe LeJere and Shane Carr. Addison also mentioned ongoing email discussions with Mark about Google participation and requested input from team members about recent accomplishments. The team decided to keep issue 185 open until receiving feedback, and Addison agreed to follow up on the XML errata mechanism with Philippe.

Explainer Progress and Review Process

The team discussed tracking and advancing an explainer for message resources in the I18N Discuss repository. Eemeli explained that Fuqiao had added issues for him to iterate on the explainer, and they agreed to track the progress in their weekly meetings. Addison suggested establishing a check-in process and potentially reviewing the document with a wider audience. Joel requested a link to the explainer, which Eemeli provided. Fuqiao also shared a link to a presentation he gave at the A/C meeting in Japan, honoring Addison's contributions.

RDF Specification Review Planning

The team discussed reviewing RDF specifications, with Joel working on the core spec and planning to review the sparkle spec alongside it. Addison mentioned that Ivan had noticed special encoding of base direction in EPUB, which was relevant to their work. The team assigned reviews for specs 284-286, with Bert taking n triples and xfq agreeing to review Concepts, while Joel and Addison noted that the review deadline was the 22nd of the month.

EPUB Encoding and Ruby Explainer

The team discussed two main issues: a new EPUB proposal regarding RDFs and language string encoding, and a Ruby text-to-speech explainer proposal. For the EPUB issue, Addison explained that Ivan noticed a special encoding method using double hyphens to separate language tags from base direction, though Pierre indicated this mechanism would not be borrowed. Regarding the Ruby explainer issue (2050), Fuqiao raised a question about user agent behavior when determining Ruby type attributes, which Florian addressed by suggesting complementary reading of both base text and Ruby text to avoid data loss. The team decided to close this issue as the explainer document would be presented in its entirety at a later time.

Ruby Specification Transfer Discussion

Florian explained the status of the Ruby specification. Florian mentioned that the specification was now ready for republishing, but the charter for the working group that used to publish it was expired. He proposed moving the spec to this working group, which made sense given the expertise here. Florian also noted that the current charter already covered the work.

The group discussed publishing a working draft of a specification, with Florian requesting a transition request to be made public. They also touched on a new feature proposal for text-to-speech in browsers, which Florian had addressed in an explainer. Additionally, Richard expressed concerns about the group's charter regarding REC track specifications.

Florian suggested trying to publish as a working draft with the intention of getting approval, while also working on updating the charter. Addison agreed to this approach, emphasizing the need for transparency about their intentions. The group acknowledged the complexity of the situation and agreed to proceed with filing an issue to determine if they could publish as a working draft or if they needed to request a recharter.

Rechartering

The group discussed rechartering the working group to enable the publication of Rec Track documents, including the HTML Ruby specification. Florian proposed a resolution to this effect, which was supported by the group. They also agreed to pursue publishing a working draft of the HTML Ruby specification using the Transition request process. The group acknowledged that the rechartering process would take approximately three months. They decided to assign an action to start the rechartering process, with Addison taking the lead on drafting the resolution.

The group discussed wording changes for a charter, with Eemeli suggesting the ability to later decide to publish a Message Resource REC track document without requiring further rechartering. Addison agreed to revise the wording to allow for tentative deliverables, and xfq volunteered to draft the charter.