W3C

– DRAFT –
Clreq Editors' Call

12 August 2020

Attendees

Present
Bobby, Eric, Huijing, xfq, Xidorn
Regrets
-
Chair
xfq
Scribe
xfq

Meeting minutes

Go through the pull request list

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pulls

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌323

xfq: OK to merge?

All: looks good

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌320

[Discuss the translations]

Bobby: for "Participate:", 協助參與 is better than 參與

xfq: OK

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌315

xfq: I added links to the definition of "line gap"

Xidorn: should we also change the Chinese text?

xfq: good question
… the SC and TC text for "line gap" is the same
… not sure if ReSpec will complain if we have two dfn with the same text
… I suggest that we merge this first
… I'll open a new issue for the Chinese text

All: sounds good

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌314

xfq: fix for #298

All: looks good, please merge

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌313

xfq: emphasize that em dashes are horizontally and vertically centered

Xidorn: in vertical writing mode, it is not a "horizontal bar"

All: we can change it to "line" (直线)

Rewrite of Compression Rules for Punctuation Marks

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues/‌221

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌pull/‌307

xfq: a few changes since the last meeting

[go through the changes]

Huijing: "judgment" should be "judgement"

xfq: judgment is more common

xfq: I'll make a few editorial fixes and merge this
… thank you!

Line Adjustment

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues/‌255

xfq: I made a few comments in the issue
… re necessity for line adjustment
… and on the terminology

[Discuss xfq's comments]

xfq: 均等挤压 and 均匀拉伸 are not very easy to understand

Eric: 二分 is a jargon in letterpress printing

Eric: Should we use more easy-to-understand language?

xfq: I think so
… like 二分之一个汉字宽

Eric: the word 字符串 does not appear anywhere else
… we may not need it

xfq: 标点符号避头尾处理 should be 行首行尾禁则

Eric: I'll rephrase my text after the meeting
… we can discuss it in the next meeting

xfq: note that in clreq/jlreq we use "European numerals" instead of "Arabic numerals"

Go through the issue list

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues/‌296

xfq: 行排列方向 is easier to understand for me than 换行方向
… otherwise LGTM

Eric: 缩进 should be 缩排

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues/‌291

[Discuss the ambiguity in the Chinese text]

Eric: I'll comment on the issue

Next telecon time

September 9 (Wednesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)

AOB

Eric: Please PRE-READ https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌clreq/‌issues/‌285 before the next call

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 122 (Tue Aug 11 13:09:49 2020 UTC).