See also: IRC log
<aharon> FYI, unfortunately, I only have half an hour today.
Review techniques index pages to check that all the current links in the index point to the right place
(kenny)
<kennyluck> needs more time.
thanks
close ACTION-24
<trackbot> ACTION-24 Send addison tools for conversion to HTML closed
Finish edits and convert time zones document to HTML
Ping Unicode via liasion about LISA standards status
<kennyluck> renderingUA
kenny: html spec now has section
on rendering UA
... default stylesheets for almost all elements
... not required to support all default style sheets
... but now editor now says UAs that support stylesheets MUST
support these sheets no matter they are purely presentational
like font-size, etc. or bidi properties
... so now we can write tests
... think aharon filed a bug like this
aharon: did file such a bug
... sound like a good development
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2011Mar/0011.html
http://www.w3.org/International/questions/temp.php
richard: okay to publish?
<scribe> ACTION: all: review the proposed new version of language preferences and send comments to public-i18n@ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - all
richard: HTML announced recently
that they will create their own IRI section
... because work going too slowly on ietf spec
<inserted> HTML WG's decision on reference to IRI
http://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/17
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html#character-encoding
Previously the polyglot document allowed only UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings. Leif Silli has proposed that only UTF-8 be allowed, and the editor of the polyglot document has changed the specification to say that.
richard: think maybe somebody
might think UTF-16 is important enough to keep???
... don't follow Leif's argument that it should be banned
because HTML5 doesn't necessarily support it
david: think it's a good
step
... tools and parsers can be just that little bit simpler
addison: is our official position "don't care"
<scribe> ACTION: addison: send note to html wg saying "no objection" is our official position on issue 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Send note to html wg saying "no objection" is our official position on issue 17 [on Addison Phillips - due 2011-03-30].
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2011JanMar/0111.html
http://www.w3.org/mid/4D84B9B4.3040809@intertwingly.net
Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to make Content-Language non-conforming. Of the Change Proposals before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections.
addison: so documents with cl are
invalid
... but maintain rules allowing mapping of CL to html@lang if
not present
... two issues:
... 1. are we okay with this?
... 2. do we want to change any of the remaining rules?
... on the one hand, makes our lives MUCH easier
... but it's odd to pick the one header out of the HTTP forest
to make invalid
richard: on balance happy to see it go
<meta language="xxx" />
david: not going to upset very many people, but makes many people's lives easier
andrewc: possible to use other metadata schemas to do the same thing
richard: that would be a lot
clearer than this
... and its use hsa been perverted
... which we want to stop
... (not make equivalent to @lang)
<aharon> FWIW, from someone who does not know much about the issue, proposal sounds good to me.
addison: so does this mean we have strong support?
richard: with regret, yes
<fsasaki> no objections
<kennyluck> no objections.
<David> +1
<matial> no objections
<aharon> no objections
<andrewc> no objections
<aharon> Sorry, have to go now.
addison: +1
<scribe> ACTION: addison: write a response on issue 88 indicating our support for the decision [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-i18n-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Write a response on issue 88 indicating our support for the decision [on Addison Phillips - due 2011-03-30].
anything to cover this week? some responses from fantasai...
<kennyluck> +q
richard: meta discussion about
how to track these issues?
... lots of stuff we don't really track
... issue 17, for example....
... this was something going on on the html list
... so turned into issue
... in the past we track WG comments that way (prior to our
endorsement)
... after review
... but this one was just something that I turned into an
issue
... somebody could raise to issue status
... lots and lots tho'
... or could create a table or list
addison: using issues makes easy to track
richard: will it cause problems
since it mixes formal issues from informal issues
... who should we address these issues to? what list?
... so far tracked on public-i18n-core@
... html one went to www-international@
... but also raised on html@
... some visual confusion issues
addison: public general purpose
issues on winter but WG issues on public?
... or *also* on public?
... try for awhile---raising as issues in tracker when we see a
thread of interest
?
richard: (gives example)
addison: need to track WG issues because we'll be asked if we're satisfied
richard: only track on our
own?
... but better to inject our tracker issue # into actual
discussion so that it captures the thread
... two products for any spec... one for formal comments and
one for any other issues
... may copy same lists but otherwise distinguish
addison: acks kenny
kenny: next week
regrets next week: richard
regrets coming for david