W3C

- DRAFT -

i18n ITS WG (F2f August 2006)

8 Sep 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Yves, Richard, Sebastian_Rahtz
Regrets
Chair
Yves
Scribe
Felix

Contents


 

 

<scribe> scribe: Felix

<scribe> scribeNick: felix-boulder

<scribe> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0282.html

<rahtz> I phoned it, no-one there?

Sebastian, could you drop of , phone again and use the code 4873348 ?

substantive changes

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#transition-reqs

A substantive change:

A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.

(Richard describes various interpretations of a substantive change)

Discussion on "implementation experience"

Felix gives examples of specs with changes and different effects

discussion on how to approach people , Richard proposes to say : "We think these are not substantive changes, because of : xxx - what do you think?"

Yves: there are six issues which we think are not substantive issue

status of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3459

general agreement that this is not substantive

status of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3464

Yves: addition of termInfoPointer

Distinction between "theoretical ideas" of ITS versus actual implementation

Richard mentions the possibilty of taking a substantive change back to avoid going back to WD

that might be necessary for this change

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466

Yves: the change of conformance for ruby and HTML. We took it out of the conformance
... argumentation here is: what happens to ITS ruby or "dir" markup is not only what is described the the Ruby TR and the HTML (CSS) spec.
... so it makes no sense to cite these specifications normatively

Sebastian: what is the difference for an implementor?

Yves: he does not have to implement the ruby TR or dir specs

Sebastian: so this does not break an implementation

Richard: we "substracted" s.t. , that is the key

Sebastian: removing a processing expectation seems pretty minor

Richard: seems to be o.k.
... but did we address the original comment?
... the original comment had to do with conformance to markup
... not processing expectations

Yves: how is that different from translatability? We don't say anything about an association of ITS with s.t. which has three values (not two)
... you say "for association of markup, you need the same content model"
... is that not clear?

(no conclusion on this, we go on to the next topic)

status of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467

Yves describes the change from rubyText : attribute to element

Richard: I see the change of rubyText as substantive, also the termInfoPointer addition. But not dramatical changes

status of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3612

Yves: the changing of term, has now the values "yes" and "no"

Richard: might be substanvive, but you might get through with it

Sebastian: does this break s.t.?

Yves: it adds a feature to the implementation, the implementations will still work

Sebastian: it would break for validation, since the term attribute was not allowed at the termRule element before

status of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3640

the change is at http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset-diffTo20060518.html#selection-defaults-etc

Sebastian: this is clearing up a misunderstanding
... we could not leave it ambigious

summary

Yves: there are three possibly substantive ones, but there are minor ones
... we can illustrate that the implementation changes are very small

<scribe> ACTION: Yves and Felix to have a call with Philippe on changes in the LC draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/08-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]

Richard: you can say that I support your position

action item review

Richard: I did my action item on CSS 2

Richard explains the issue

Richard: it will not effect us if we rely on CSS 2
... I will send a mail on this later

modifications to the draft

See changelog at http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/changelog.txt

draft is at http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html

and http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset-diffTo20060518.html

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Yves and Felix to have a call with Philippe on changes in the LC draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/08-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/09/08 15:02:58 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Feli/Felix/
Found Scribe: Felix
Found ScribeNick: felix-boulder
Default Present: Yves, Richard, Sebastian_Rahtz
Present: Yves Richard Sebastian_Rahtz
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0127.html
Got date from IRC log name: 8 Sep 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/08-i18nits-minutes.html
People with action items: felix yves

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]