RE: Any update on TAG request?

Larry noted:

> I guess this flew by ... Maybe I'm completely missing something?  I'm not sure
> what the TAG is going to add to this, or why it should be a TAG finding.

In a nutshell, the I18N WG has historically had a position on Unicode Normalization in W3C specs and other Web technologies (embodied in Charmod-Norm). However, most specs and implementations have ignored this position. We have convinced various people that there is a problem, but not that they should take on the pain of being the first to address it.

Recognizing that this historical position on normalization is untenable and in examining the alternatives, the WG still feels that normalization-affected languages would benefit from selective normalization during selection and string identity matching in W3C specs. The specs that concern us most (such as CSS3 Selectors) have potential ripple effects into other W3C specs (such as HTML5, DOM) and beyond (such as JavaScript).

If we're to do this, t'were best done quickly and consistently. A TAG finding or statement would communicate this issue widely and establish a precedent for immediate-future decisions about normalization. The two options that we feel are currently reasonable to consider are:

1. Do nothing. Do not require normalization by implementations or in specs. Create educational materials to help content authors understand the problem and try to avoid it.

2. Adopt our proposal for identifier and token/string matching normalization. Revise Charmod-Norm to embody this. Ensure that specs address these requirements in the future.


> contains:
> # In the meantime, documents such as CSS3 Selectors and HTML5 depend on or
> could be impacted by Unicode Normalization.  In a discussion with Peter Linss,
> co-chair of CSS, and others [4],
> But there is no reference [4].

Typo. Reference [3] in that document is what was meant. 

This was a meeting facilitated by PLH between CSS Namespaces and I18N. Attendees were Richard and I from I18N, Chirs Lilly, PLH, and Peter (co-chair of CSS)

> You are the internationalization experts, the TAG are not. Why isn't the best
> course of action for the W3C I18N working group to finish its document based
> on community consensus, including the CSS and HTML working groups?

A summary of both the history of this issue and the proposal for the position of the I18N WG given above is here: 

I think this might help clarify a bit. 

We are seeking to present the choices related to normalization to TAG now, garner a clear direction, and move everyone (that includes I18N) in that direction by fixing Charmod-Norm (and/or any affected specs) to match what the Web does/will really do. 




Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 15:38:22 UTC