W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Minutes of 27 May 2002 TAG teleconf (charmodReview-17, URIEquivalence-15)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:45:34 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Dear TAG,

At 18:15 02/05/27 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/27-tag-summary
>                Summary of 27 May 2002 TAG teleconference

>Progress on charmodReview-17
>See issue [17]charmodeReview-17. Please note [18]Charmod last
>call review form.
>  [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17 [18]
>  http://www.w3.org/2002/05/charmod/LastCall
><Ian> TB: I think we should apologize to the I18N WG and say we
>think that the TAG will have some material comments to make, but
>request a 1-week extension.

I herewith request that the I18N WG grant this extension.

To simplify communication, I also commit to notifying you
in case this extension is not granted. If you don't hear
anything from me on this issue within 24h from now, you
can assume that the extension has been granted.

><Ian> CL: I suggest that people review NW and CL comments for 3
>June.  Approve some version on 3 June and send to I18N WG. I
>think we can commit to them having full comments by 4 June.

That would be great.

><Ian> PC: I agree with that. My WG is likely to lament the early
>normalization bits.

><Ian> TB: I think people will agree that normalization is a good
>thing. The question is how much you pay for this benefit.
><Ian> PC: Lots of people worried about backwards compatibility

I think the main question for normalization is how/how much
to enforce it. In the first last call
our approach was:
"Early uniform normalization is a good thing, please do it."
We didn't have any enforcement requirements.
But we got a comment saying that without any enforcement,
we won't get anywhere:
As a consequence, we worked on making everything very strict
(lot's of MUST,...). I think that input from the TAG on how
to find the best balance on enforcement would be very helpful.

>Progress on URIEquivalence-15
>See issue [25]URIEquivalence-15.
>  [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#URIEquivalence-15
><Ian> TB: Good stuff on www-tag on this one, in particular
>[26]email from Martin.
>  [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0161
><Ian> Homework for next week: Read Martin's email. (High on
>agenda for next week)
><Ian> PC: can URIEquivalence-15 and charmodReview-17 be
>separated? We should be prepared to discuss their
>connection/relation next week.

My opinion is that they are rather separate.
If %hh-escaping were character-based (rather than byte-based),
I guess the character model would require to resolve the escaping
before processing (although I'm not sure we say so explicitly).

><Ian> SW: I agree. Can we say that the succesful production of a
>character model will go a long way in resolving
><Ian> TB: I don't think so. But charmod will help us discuss this
>more clearly.
><Ian> PC: Should we invite an I18N person to the teleconf?
><Ian> CL, TB: Yes.
><Ian> IJ: Martin may not be able to make this teleconf in
>Japan. Misha might be able to.

I checked the time. It's 04:00-06:30 in Japan. 04:00 is definitely
too early, but 06:00 seems doable.

><Ian> TB: Let's try to resolve this ourselves first. I will
>commit to reading Martin's email and the IRI draft. I will try
>and summarize the key things for the TAG. TB: Not sure how to
>answer: Do IRIs have any traction anywhere (e.g., IETF, among
><Ian> CL: Depends on which part. IE, there's an option "Put into
>UTF-8, then hexify"; that's part of IRI document.

There is a very simple test at http://www.w3.org/2001/08/iri-test/.
Currently, IE (I guess from version 5 up), Netscape >= 6.2,
Opera >6, and the newer versions of Amaya all pass this test.
For IE, the option is on by default except for the Korean version.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 05:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:51 UTC