Category: For review
A Last Call Working Draft of Encoding has been published.
While encodings have been defined to some extent, implementations have not always implemented them in the same way, have not always used the same labels, and often differ in dealing with undefined and former proprietary areas of encodings. This specification attempts to fill those gaps so that new implementations do not have to reverse engineer encoding implementations of the market leaders and existing implementations can converge.
The body of this spec is an exact copy of the WHATWG version as of the date of its publication, intended to provide a stable reference for other specifications. We are hoping for people to review the specification and send comments about any technical areas that need attention (see the Status section for details).
Please send comments by 1 July 2014.
In line with decisions taken by the Working Group several months ago, the editor’s copies of two Internationalization WG Notes have been significantly changed.
The information has been overhauled to bring it up to date with recent changes to various articles, in line with changes in HTML and CSS.
The new versions have also been paired down to a set of do’s and don’ts, with pointers to more detailed explanations in other articles on the i18n site, plus some introductory material that is not found elsewhere. This significantly reduces duplication of information, and thereby improves usability and maintainability of the content.
The documents in question are:
If you have any comments on these documents, please send them to email@example.com before 12 April. We hope to replace the current versions of these Notes with the new versions shortly after.
An updated version of Declaring character encodings in HTML is out for wide review. We are looking for comments before 7 March. After the review period is over, this content will be copied to the same location as the current version of the document and the URL of the updated version will cease to exist.
The update brings the article in line with recent developments in HTML5, and de-emphasizes information about legacy formats.
An attempt was also made to organize the material so that readers can find information more quickly, and also de-clutters the essential information by moving edge topics, such as UTF-16 and charset links, down the page. This led to the article being almost completely rewritten.
Please send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
An updated version of What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline markup is out for wide review. We are looking for comments over the next two weeks. After the review period is over, this content will be copied to the same location as the current version of What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline markup and the URL of the updated version will cease to exist.
The update rewrites the article to reflect the recent changes in bidi markup in the HTML5 specification.
Technically speaking, the main change is that the
dir attribute now isolates text by default with respect to the bidi algorithm. Isolation as a default is the recommendation of the Unicode Standard as of version 6.3.
From a less technical point of view, the main advantages to the update are that the new methods introduced here reduce the need to use a new approach when the direction of content is known, and therefore makes for a much simpler transition for both content authors and browser developers to support the advances in the handling of bidirectional text content. At the same time, these approaches have good results for existing legacy content.
Please send comments to email@example.com.
The Internationalization Working Group has published a Last Call Working Draft of Use Cases & Exploratory Approaches for Ruby Markup.
Comments are welcome through 24 September. As this document has already been through a review cycle, we are not anticipating major changes to arise over the coming two weeks, and hope to move it to publication as a WG Note in two to three weeks time. See the status section for information about where to send feedback if you have any.
This document aims to support discussion about what is needed in the HTML5 specification, and possibly other markup vocabularies, to adequately support ruby markup. It looks at a number of use cases involving ruby, and how well the following approaches support those use cases: the HTML5 model described in the Candidate Recommendation as of 17 December 2012, the XHTML Ruby Annotation model, and the Ruby Extension Specification proposed in February 2013.
The MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group has published a Last Call Working Draft of Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0. ITS 2.0 makes it easier to integrate automated processing of human language into core Web technologies. ITS 2.0 focuses on HTML, XML-based formats in general, and can leverage processing based on the XML Localization Interchange File Format (XLIFF), as well as the Natural Language Processing Interchange Format (NIF). Comments are welcome through 10 September.
The draft implements all changes since the previous publication of 11 April 2013. There are no remaining open issues. The Working Group is planning to finalize ITS 2.0 now: this is your last time to provide feedback! The Last Call period ends 11 June.
ITS 2.0 provides metadata to foster the adoption of the multilingual Web.
The Internationalization Working Group has published a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for Hangul Text Layout and Typography and is looking for feedback.
This document describes requirements for general Korean language/Hangul text layout and typography realized with technologies like CSS, SVG and XSL-FO. The document is mainly based on a project to develop the international standard for Korean text layout.
A Korean version of the document is also available (한국어 텍스트 레이아웃 및 타이포그래피를 위한 요구사항), but the English version is the authoritative version.
Comments are requested on the following proposed updates to material on the Internationalization site, prior to final publication. NOTE THAT the articles are in a temporary location, and will be moved to their final location after the review.
Text direction and structural markup in HTML
This article has been created from material formerly in the tutorial “Creating HTML Pages in Arabic, Hebrew and Other Right-to-left Scripts” and augmented with information about new HTML5 markup constructs that are beginning to see adoption. It should be regarded as a new article, focusing on applying bidi markup to document- and block-level situations and to forms.
What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline markup
This is an update of an existing article. It has been almost completely rewritten. The most significant changes are the new parts describing how to apply the new HTML5 constructs which are beginning to see adoption. Additional changes will be needed as HTML5 bidi markup is finalised over the coming months. The article also proposes a simpler way to approach markup of bidi text, particularly useful for those with less experience, that relies less on a deep understanding of the issues involved.
Visual vs. logical ordering of text
This is a new article created from material that has been removed from the previously mentioned material. It was removed into a separate article because visual ordering is much less important these days, and to avoid duplication. Only a few changes have been made to the content itself.
Creating HTML Pages in Arabic, Hebrew and Other Right-to-left Scripts
This tutorial has been modified to bring it in line with the current tutorial format. Rather than contain duplicate content, it now introduces the novice to key concepts and points off to useful further reading in an organized fashion. It has been completely rewritten.
Please send any comments over the next two weeks to firstname.lastname@example.org (subscribe).
We hope to publish a final version shortly after that.
Comments are requested on the following proposed update of the article The byte-order mark (BOM) in HTML prior to final publication. NOTE THAT the article is in a temporary location, and will be moved to its final location after the review.
The majority of the article has been rewritten, with the aim of reducing the previous warnings against using the BOM for UTF-8 documents. Also taken into account is the change to the HTML5 spec that raises the precedence of the BOM versus the HTTP header in terms of character encoding declaration.
We hope to publish a final version at the beginning of the New Year.