See also: IRC log
Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0018.html
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-i18ncore-minutes
approved minutes
<scribe> ACTION: all to look at the C064 issue (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to describe potential data binding review (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0013.html
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to the CSS WG saying that we did not come to do the CSS 2.1 review and need an extension until 16 Februrary (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0016.html
Felix: no reply yet
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to WS policy and say i18n core is fine with the pocliy drafts (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to xml schema saying we will have IRI xml schema tests as part of the IRI test suite, no need to have them within the xml schema conformance test suite (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to reread Martins mail and to write a reply to him (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to go back to PLS folks (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to write a mail about possibility for SVG tiny specific IRI tests to martin and the i18n core list (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod norm (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather information on options for diacrictics in collations (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to do the IDN work update (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]
Michael: drafted a scenario, I'll send it at the end of today
Felix: tx, we will discuss it next week
Michael: tested various browsers on Windows
... I'll put the information in the draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0013.html
(Felix explains the mail)
Francois: Unicode page has evolved since we promoted charmod
... so charmod norm in relation to that Unicode
page is a bit akward
... we put a reference to C063 and C064 to avoid references to e.g. Unicode 1.0
... I see Bjoerns point now, the
latest version does not mean necessarly the latest published version
... if the latest book is the level of precision you need, that is
fine
... I would put a note after C064 and C065 saying that
Felix: adding a note without changing the statement is fine
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to draft s.t. for a note about C064 / C065 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]
Felix: should we maintain a reference?
Michael: no opinion
Ienup: we should avoid dublication
... it is responsibility of the Unicode consortium, not the W3C WG
... I had a question: why do we have the contradictory wording, with Francois statement, I now understand
... making a clarification, Bjoern
might be ok
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0031.html
Francois: we cannot maintain that information
Ienup: we could point Bjoern to the URL from Unicode
<fyergeau> http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html#Latest
Francois: we cannot give a guarentee if Unicode will maintain that pages
Ienup: we could ask the Unicode UTC for a clarification
... i..e wether the URI will be maintained
...
next meeting will be in February
... Feb 6-9
<scribe> ACTION: Ienup to go to the Unicode UTC and check the stability of the "latest version" URI for referencing Unicode [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
Ienup: I will write a mail about the question to you guys
Felix: ok
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to VBWG asking about our CCXML comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]
Felix: input to data binding comments, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2007Jan/0012.html
... should we ask them to information about the BOM?
Francois: worried about that. BOM is specified in XML spec itself
... don't think we should make it too
wide
... we should not make it too wide. Pointing to the Unicode FAQ is a good idea
Ienup: agree, we should refer to Unicode FAQ
Felix: next comment: should they refer to XML 1.1 as well?
Francois: for XML Schema 1.0 it does not make sense, since it is XML 1.0, for implementations it is useful
Felix: the spec is not about implementations, so let's drop this comment
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/
Francois: good to have a note about the differences between dateTime in xml schema and programming languages
... on languageElement: agree with asking for a reference to BCP 47
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to bring i18n core comments to data binding WG
Francois: I'll try to make a reply to Martin before 31 January
Ienup: the document mentions BOM
... saying that BOM should be stripped out for utf-16
... it is
referencing quite old definitions for utf-8 and utf-16, they are quite outdated, they should reference the current version of Unicode instead
... that reference has important information related to security
Francois: for BOM, I need to look at the spec. As for the references: these are for the RFCs which control what
utf-8 / utf-16 is on the internet
... I think this should remain references to the proper RFCs, only utf-8 needs to be updated
... for the
BOM: where do you want a change?
Ienup: sec 2.1
"For UTF-16, the leading byte order mark is treated as an artifact of encoding and stripped from the UCS character data (subsequent zero width non-breaking spaces appearing within the UTF-16 data are not removed) [UTF-16, Section 3.2]"
should also mention utf-8
Francois: also update the references to Unicode
... and rfc 2279 to 3629
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to xml core with our comments on c14n [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]