See also: IRC log
<trackbot> ACTION-165 -- Richard Ishida to contact Tab about plans to make the ruby spec extension -- due 2012-12-12 -- OPEN
richard: can be closed
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-165 Contact Tab about plans to make the ruby spec extension.
richard: robin berjon has produced an HTML extension draft
<trackbot> ACTION-166 -- Richard Ishida to inform wg when bidi documents are ready for review -- due 2012-12-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-166 Inform wg when bidi documents are ready for review.
richard: ready for review
<trackbot> ACTION-170 -- Addison Phillips to coordinate with richard regarding KLReq -- due 2013-01-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-174 -- Addison Phillips to write article about floating times in HTML -- due 2013-01-30 -- OPEN
aphillip: have started this
aphillip: feel free to comment. Have xxx third of the text in
<trackbot> ACTION-175 -- Richard Ishida to contact Robin Berjon about what he's doing wrt ruby extension work -- due 2013-01-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-175 Contact Robin Berjon about what he's doing wrt ruby extension work.
<trackbot> ACTION-176 -- Addison Phillips to ping anne about encoding spec -- due 2013-02-07 -- OPEN
aphillip: will keep open
<trackbot> ACTION-177 -- Addison Phillips to establish scribing rotation -- due 2013-02-07 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> ACTION-178 -- Norbert Lindenberg to coordinate proposing text for ITS directionality with richard -- due 2013-02-07 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> ACTION-182 -- Richard Ishida to send note with updated text for directionality to MLW-LT -- due 2013-02-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- Addison Phillips to write draft of new charmod-norm -- due 2013-02-14 -- OPEN
aphillip: not done yet
aphillip: john klensin joined as invited expert, welcome!
johnC: have worked on i18n issues
on IETF and ICANN for some years, IDN and other topics
... felt to participate in this work no an ongoing basis rather than complaining later
aphillip: great, welcome!
johnC: recently adobe received
funding to work on ITS2
... we are attempting to add tags to jack rabbit
very cool, joconner :)
richard: what is jack rabbit?
joconner: an open source
... would like to add the ITS tags into the schema for content
richard: this week published
program for MLW workshop in rome
... if you want to go register asap. many spaces are taken already
... have a good program http://www.multilingualweb.eu/documents/rome-workshop/rome-program
... Mark Davis is doing the keynote
... have the usual format with many different people in the room who haven't met before
... other topic - bidi in HTML work:
... some of the things work, thought it is good to put this out so that people can look at it
... then korean layout requirements doc
... lot of english + format editing
aphillip: next will speak at imug conference
richard: robin berjon working on
HTML5 ruby extension spec
... he was unaware of stuff we are doing, need closer communication
... robin sent the draft to public i18n cjk list for review
... we need to look into this in the next couple of weeks of possible
<aphillip> ACTION: addison: remind group to review berjon's ruby spec extension proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Remind group to review berjon's ruby spec extension proposal [on Addison Phillips - due 2013-02-21].
richard: what is proposed:
availibility of an rb tag
... fantasai proposes an rb.rb.rt.rt model for jukugo ruby support
... that is with multiple bases at the start of the ruby tag, and multiple rts at the end
... I think that this is not necessary
... fantasai is concered that if you have an inline set in your ruby
... annotations at the end of the base characters should be dropped after the ruby tag
... I think that can be done easily done by the browser re-organizing information
... doing that with markup is a very small tail for waging a large dog
... now double sided ruby:
... fantasai is against nesting of ruby elements
... she wants to go closer to what the old Ruby Annotation spec said
... and use an rtc element for the secondary level of annotation, eg. rb.rb.rt.rt.rtc(rt.rt)
... having done nested stuff I think it's not so difficult and may be ok given the frequency
... but fantasai's proposal for double-sided using rtc may be easier - i need to review the details carefully
richard: in the past we wanted to
get isolated spans used in inline markup
... and we planned to write an extension spec for HTML5
... with two new attribute values, corresponding to new unicode control characters
... however, thinking it over, I thought this might not be the best way forward
... see the email at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2013Feb/0010.html
... the best way might be: to create a new attribute "direction"
... that attribute would have ltr, rtl, auto as values
... and it would produce isolation by default
... you cannot, like in CSS, put in two things and have the 2nd one taken up
... e.g. two instances of "dir"
... we already have problems confusing rtl and ltr when they type
... adding lri rli has the potential to increase typos
... people have to take "intelligent decisions" what to choose
... most people have no clue about the importance of isolation
... and continue what they have always done
... there is a downside of using new values
aharon: another downside:
... lri and rli more or less explicitly say "this should be isloated"
... that is fine for inline markup, but what about a block element?
... it doesn't makes sense to write <p dir="lri">
... so ltr and rtl would not get completely deprecated really
richard: an alternative would be
the "direction" attribute
... with the three values ltr, rtl, auto
<aphillip> <p dir="rtl" direction="ltr"> :-(
richard: it has the advantage to use it alongside dir in the short term to ensure transition
felix: what guidance would we give people for non-HTML scenarios?
richard: good question - will
come back to that later?
... if we deprecate dir we can move into the direction of "direction"
aphillip: that would make many pages invalid
... additional advantages of direction attribute: people continue to use the same values
... they just need to know "direction" rather than "dir"
... and it doesn't rely on CSS available
... the drawback is that it is a pain to use two attributes at the same time
... one new idea related to this that only occurred to me today:
... we almost never want to do non-isloated text
... in unicode report that describes lri and rli it says you can still use the old values
... if we go away from the old values we will loose the ability to embed
... which may be useful in some circumstances
... we could have a new attribute that produces isolation
... and we could keep dir
... the new attribute could be bdi
... or bd for "base direction"
... aharon already said you can use direction aspect of block elements
... so we can give clearer guidance
<matial> I don't see the difference between the direction attr and the bd(i) attribute
<aphillip> <p dir="rtl" embed>
richard: some people have used directionality in a way they shouldn't
<aphillip> <p dir="ltr" isoloate>
richard: so generally we always want isolation
... I support Richard's second proposal (to use a new attribute)
... use of dir for intentional embedding is not theoretical:
... I know people who use dir in a way that does embedding, not isolation
... changing the semantics of dir is not an option, and taking it away is not an option either
... it is incorrect to say that block elements are isolated
... what to do about dir name and CSS - that is not an issue
... if you have <span direction="ltr">
... meaning it is isolated
... directionality is ltr, i.e. <span dir="ltr>
... that is the same, since direcitonality influecnes what you want to do inside the element
... islolation talkes about what is outside the element
<aphillip> <span dir="rtl" isolate>
aharon: dir is then ignored by new browser if they use direction
aphillip: is auto equivalent to FSI?
aharon: dir=auto is isolating
richard: in implementations currently it isolates but doesn't do the "auto" part
aphillip: what actions follow from this?
richard: need to continue
discussion, basic proposal is in mail I sent
... need to decide whether we should choose option two
... and need to think about getting things moving
... and then we need to find something to author extension spec ...
... before we do all that I think
felix: should we look into this proposal?
richard: that proposal just said
that there are two types of direction
... there is a note about isolation, and I think the proposal is still valid
... the point is then you define the attribute values
aphillip: we were pointing to HTML4
richard: rlo and lro also don't
exist in HTML5, but as concepts they do
... like to hear opinions
aphillip: need to look into more material before making decisions
matial: we cannot change dir
behavior because we don't want to break existing pages
... we cannot unify one attribute because often documents are composed from various pieces
... telling to use two different attributes for direction, one for blocks and one for inline, will be hard to educate people
... creating a new attributeis the best thing
... if we want a name different from direction it could be called "bdir"
<aphillip> richard: enjoin folks to read email and send comments
richard: publish blog post?
... could publish on i18n home page
<Najib-ma> I favors option 2 [create a new attribute]
<Najib-ma> Thinks it is reasonable.
<Najib-ma> But I fear people think of "direction" attribute as a new name of "dir" attribute.
<Najib-ma> and then will be surprised by the effect of isolate, if any.
<Najib-ma> That's all
<scribe> ACTION: richard: publish blog post as wiki, put on front door, and announce to winter list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Publish blog post as wiki, put on front door, and announce to winter list [on Richard Ishida - due 2013-02-21].
richard: one more question for
... people have used dir embedding wrongly
... but are there other cases where you want to embed rather than isolate on purpose?
aharon: no, because then you get with LRM,etc.
richard: if you unnecessarily/accidentally put dir on span in same direction, no problem?
aharon: other way around
john: classic problem with domain names
aharon: in LTR context, span with LTR starting with RTL character