– DRAFT –
Clreq Editors' Call
02 April 2019
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/203
xfq: Merge?
Eric: Agreed.
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/198
Eric: I don't think illustration is needed
xfq: should we merge it then?
All: agreed.
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/208
Huijing: I integrated the changes by Eric
Eric: did Taiwan use the term 字级?
bobby: yep
Eric: this table is just a reference, not a hard requirement
Eric: there's a typo
… please help fix it, huijing
… after fixing it, we can merge this PR
xidorn: is there a conversion between 「字级」 and 「字号」?
bobby: jlreq explains what "Q" is
https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#elements_of_kihonhanmen
bobby: should we add it too?
Eric: we can add a note
… or link to jlreq
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/207
Eric: any objection to adding the text in 207 to the document?
Eric: jlreq uses "ideographic"
Bobby: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chinese_character#English
Eric: I think we can use "Chinese character (Hanzi)"
… Ideographic characters in jlreq does not only contain kanji
… it contains some symbols too
https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#cl-19
Yijun: I don't think categorizing non-ideographic characters as "ideographic" is very accurate, though
Eric: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-jlreq-20120403/table_en2.pdf uses the character class
xfq: I don't see any issue in using "Chinese character"
… any objection?
Yijun: please use plural ("Chinese characters")
[no objection]
Huijing: I'll translate the text in #207
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/206
Bobby: I added 嘆問號 and 示亡號 in #206
Eric: the text looks good to me
bobby: I have a question, where are U+2020 DAGGER † and U+2021 DOUBLE DAGGER ‡ put when used?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Garamond
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/204
Eric: what is connector mark in Taiwanese standard?
Yijun: I think #204 and #205 are font problems, not the problem of our choice of code points
xidorn: the width of 1em equals to the width of one ideographic character
… not necessarily equals to the width of the capital M
Bobby: any objection changing the text as I commented in #204?
Eric: looks good to me
Eric: why did you write the code points?
Bobby: because there's no standardized code points for them
Eric: I would write the code points as notes
Bobby: can you work on #204, Yijun?
Yijun: yes
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/205
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/202
xfq: I'll add some ids
May 9, Thu, 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)