See also: IRC log
<aphillip_> https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/open
<aphillip_> close action-174
<trackbot> Closed action-174.
<aphillip_> close action-363
<trackbot> Closed action-363.
<aphillip_> close action-524
<trackbot> Closed action-524.
<aphillip_> close action-525
<trackbot> Closed action-525.
<aphillip_> close action-527
<trackbot> Closed action-527.
<r12a> http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/reviews/
http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/reviews/
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/157
steve: the introduce a term
"plain unicode string"
... is there a difference from just a string?
A Unicode or binary string, in some cases with a file name (itself a Unicode string), as per the drag data item kind.
richard: vote to send on
addison: +1
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/158
accesskey not validatable?
steve: propose text
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/159
addison: think case-insensitive is wrong here
richard: meant to say case sensitive
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/160
If the resulting value is not a recognized language tag, then it must be treated as an unknown language having the given language tag, distinct from all other languages. For the purposes of round-tripping or communicating with other services that expect language tags, user agents should pass unknown language tags through unmodified, and tagged as being BCP 47 language tags, so that subsequent services do not interpret the data as another type of language[CUT]
don't send 160
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/161
hasn't changed
not ideal situation, but based on previous disucssion, no change
don't send 161
najib: doesn't matter about case, case insensitive, right?
addison: meant to be case insensitive
In the current HTML5.1 spec, the input type=datetime-local value is back. However the floating time language is present. Removing datetime-local from 5.0 may not have been the best move, since I later learned that type was widely used on mobile devices. So, we have interop with Edge, and Chrome implement, Firefox stable does not, not sure about Safari. Seems a little heavy-handed now to remove it.
<scribe> ACTION: addison: look into issue 123 and update as needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Look into issue 123 and update as needed [on Addison Phillips - due 2016-06-09].
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/122
forward 122
<scribe> ACTION: addison: forward issue 122 to html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Forward issue 122 to html [on Addison Phillips - due 2016-06-09].
https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/128
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/230
<scribe> ACTION: addison: write to chairs@ with a note saying effectively "don't follow old LC model, giving us no time to react" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-530 - Write to chairs@ with a note saying effectively "don't follow old lc model, giving us no time to react" [on Addison Phillips - due 2016-06-09].
richard: 1. have a look at
self-review checklist
... and 2. and ask for review at FPWD
... and 3. don't leave a small amount of time before CR
addison: should horizontal review be a process step earlier??
<scribe> ACTION: richard: add big orange box link for "how to get a review" and pointer to spec dev [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-531 - Add big orange box link for "how to get a review" and pointer to spec dev [on Richard Ishida - due 2016-06-09].
addison: park new terminology here?
richard: inclined to put in a new location and put this out to pasture
https://www.w3.org/International/O-time
<scribe> ACTION: richard: send a note to www-international asking for last call on deprecation of O-time and deprecate if no objection [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-532 - Send a note to www-international asking for last call on deprecation of o-time and deprecate if no objection [on Richard Ishida - due 2016-06-09].
<r12a> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227
(after discussion) just remove bogus normalizaiton requirement paragraph?
normalize to do comparisons
<scribe> ACTION: addison: update web-annotation 227 to say that WG thinks the normalization requirements should be removed and a health warning to do normalization on comparison might be needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-i18n-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-533 - Update web-annotation 227 to say that wg thinks the normalization requirements should be removed and a health warning to do normalization on comparison might be needed [on Addison Phillips - due 2016-06-09].