[Discussions about the proposed EPUB 3 Working Group]
Updating documents under www.org/TR
xfq: Richard sent an email to the public-clreq-admin@ mailing list
… he would like to publish the lreq, gap-analysis, and other i18n documents on /TR more frequently
… regularly publish updates to the /TR
… we don't need to go through the Webmaster to publish ordinary WDs
… Richard would also like to publish the FPWD of the Chinese Layout Gap Analysis
… Any objection/question/comment?
… Can you reply to Richard, Bobby?
huijing: I have seen the gap analysis
… and I think it is very complete, exceeding my expectations for an FPWD
Eric: I agree with Richard's suggestion
… we can always update our documents if needed
xfq: Simple Ruby FPWD published
Go through the pull request list
xfq: I think we can merge this
… "It's" -> "Its"
Bobby: 壹 should be 一
… other parts LGTM
Rewrite of Compression Rules for Punctuation Marks
… please read Eric's comment ^
[Eric describes the new text]
Eric: before discussing the compression rules, we must first define where the compression can happen (left/right/top/bottom)
… I only rewrote a part, and there are more to be written
… only rewrote the "adjacent punctuations" case
… there are other cases as well
… and we can work on them in future issues
… We may need tables in the future (like jlreq)
… Chinese is more complicated than Japanese
… because how the character face is handled and positioned relative to the character frame is different in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
… the tables in jlreq are not only about punctuations
… they're about all character classes
Eric: there are more than one compression style
… we can document them in the future
xfq: As for whether the exclamation mark in Traditional Chinese can be compressed, I think it is a matter of style.
xfq: I will try to translate Eric's text
… we can review it before/in the next call
Go through the issue list
xfq: Should we align both the base and annotation to the line edge? Or only the longer of the two?
… but it is "can", not "must" or "should"
xfq: related CSS issue ^
… I don't think it's common in modern Chinese typography
… but it does exist
… example in Japanese: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-jlreq-20120403/Images-en/img2_3_35.png
Eric: Bopomofo doesn't have this issue
… only in Romanized annotations like pinyin
xfq: we also need to fix https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/292
Xidorn: I agree with xfq's suggestion in https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/292
xfq: I'll create a pull request
xfq: should we edit the Chinese/English text per @tanukihee's comments?
Eric: I think so
xfq: horizontal ellipses in some Chinese fonts are not centered though
Eric: but they should be centered
xfq: this is about the behavior of double-clicking on Chinese text
… 她/哭/了 and 她/哭了, which is correct?
Eric: Both are reasonable
xfq: 了 a particle, instead of an inflectional suffix
… to me it is a separate word
Xidorn: do we need to write this in clreq?
xfq: I don't think so
… i18n WG wrote some tests about the behavior on double-clicking, thus the question
Eric: I don't think we can reach a conclusion in the meeting
… some people expect 她/哭/了 and while others expect 她/哭了
xfq: What would be the expectation of the average Chinese user?
[Discussion on the expectation, but there's no conclusion]
xfq: text in Chinese and English have different meanings
… I will create a PR
Next telecon time
July 8 (Wednesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)