Meeting minutes
Go through the pull request list
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pulls
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/336
xfq: removed 篇名号 according to previous discussions
… any comment? OK to merge?
All: looks good
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/335
xfq: added 缩进
… OK to merge? Any issue in the TC version?
Bobby: looks good to me
xfq: I'll merge it then
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/334
xfq: This is a relatively large PR
[xfq introduces the PR]
xfq: any comment on the en and TC version?
Bobby: there's a typo
… 以及西文字母與阿拉伯數字的之間不使用均排 should be 以及西文字母與阿拉伯數字之間不使用均排
xfq: I'll fix it
xfq: any other comment?
xfq: I forgot to use the Oxford comma
… will add it
Bobby: no further comment from me
Huijing: no comment from me either
xfq: thanks
Line Adjustment
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/255
Huijing: I added the English translation
xfq: Because there is a lot of content, I suggest we look at it after the meeting and discuss it at the next meeting
Bobby: OK
Eric: I will take a closer look after the meeting
xfq: I will read it too
Changing the structure of Chapter 4
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/285
xfq: any comment, Bobby?
… if there is no problem, we can assign tasks
[Eric introduces this issue]
Bobby: Is it necessary to write a section about positioning of illustrations? I think the positioning of illustrations is "free".
Bobby: We didn’t write the handling of headings because we think Taiwan and Japan are not much different in handling of headings
… but processing of notes are different in Taiwan and Japan
… but there are some new books that borrow conventions from Japan, like footnotes
xfq: there are also pop-up notes in eBooks
Bobby: I think it's out of the scope for clreq
xfq: clreq is about requirements for support of Simplified and Traditional Chinese on the Web and in eBooks
Bobby: OK
[Discuss the structure of Chapter 4]
Eric: tables are very similar to illustrations
xfq: unlike table, the representation of images is outside the scope of HTML/CSS, because they're external objects
Eric: initially I wanted to write table and illustrations in one section, but later I decided to separate them into two sections
… because although they're similar, they are different
… we can learn from jlreq for some of the content, but more importantly, we need to write the parts that are different from Japanese
… if everyone thinks this structure is okay, one editor can write one section.
Bobby: we can also add a new section: 4.4.6 表題與表注
[Discuss the structure of 4.4]
Bobby: I will write § 4.2 Processing of Notes
… but I have no time recently
… I am translating the EPUB 3 family of specifications recently
xfq: EPUB 3 is long
Bobby: I have already translated 60% of it
xfq: there is little content relevant to layout in the EPUB 3 family of specifications
… mostly about packaging, metadata, a11y etc.
Eric: I'll write § 4.1
Huijing: I'll provide translations
Eric: timeline?
… within this year?
xfq: § 4.1 is similar to Japanese, but there are some unique parts in Chinese in § 4.2
… thanks everyone!
Go through the issue list
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/337
xfq: it's about the rotation and flip of connector marks (U+FF5E FULLWIDTH TILDE)
[xfq introduces the issue]
Bobby: it's a font mapping issue
-----
related articles/issues for Japanese:
1) https://qiita.com/kasei-san/items/3ce2249f0a1c1af1cbd2
2) https://bunkyo-kumihan.com/kumihan_blog/?p=5279
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_dash
4) https://github.com/mozilla-japan/translation/issues/463#issuecomment-660461736
5) https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr50/
-----
related info for Chinese:
1) https://language.moe.gov.tw/001/upload/files/site_content/m0001/hau/h15.htm
2) 字型散步 NEXT, ISBN: 9789862357620, pg. 181, diagram (d)
-----
[Bobby introduces the situation of U+301C and U+FF5E in UAX #50]
xfq: from a requirement point of view, we should not consider how UAX #50 and fonts are currently implemented
… instead, we need to explain what it should look like under an ideal condition
Bobby: the problem is that there is no relevant literature
Eric: can we find examples?
Bobby: this is a relatively new punctuation mark
Eric: it's best to find some printed books
… otherwise it’s not clear which is right
… 90 degrees is correct
… not sure if it should be flipped
… and Chinese and Japanese are not necessarily the same
Bobby: it is flipped in TextEdit in macOS, both in 宋體 and in Hiragino
… and some old fonts do not rotate at all
Eric: we can ask @NightFurySL2001 to find evidence
xfq: 字型散步Next is mentioned, but I don't know how it is written in this book
… it is also in 《重訂標點符號手冊》— The Revised Handbook of Punctuation
Eric: the content in 字型散步Next might be But's personal opinion, we'd better find the actual usage of it in books.
… if this is controversial, how should we write it? Should we write "both situations exist"?
https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr50/#vertical_alternates
Eric: UAX #50 is mostly influenced by Japanese. We should look for some examples in Chinese publications.
… Taking a step back, this doesn't really matter. Rotation is more important than flip.
… Whether to flip is tolerable.
Bobby: agreed
Eric: we can write loosely (both are fine) or write more rigorously (flip is required).
… corner brackets have had similar problems before.
[Discuss the situation of corner brackets]
Bobby: we need to check some old books
… I just checked a textbook that talks about printing
… for connector marks, it only talks about U+2013 EN DASH [–], not U+FF5E FULLWIDTH TILDE [～]
… if https://language.moe.gov.tw/001/upload/files/site_content/m0001/hau/h15.jpg is an authoritative image, we need to modify UAX #50
Eric: there is also the issue of backward compatibility
… before making any decisions, we need more evidence.
… this is the basic principle.
xfq: even in Japanese, both U+301C and U+FF5E are used.
Eric: U+301C or U+FF5E is a font level problem, not a text layout requirement problem.
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/330
https://w3c.github.io/clreq/#h-ligatures
xfq: this section is ambiguous
… Do you know who wrote this, Bobby?
Bobby: I don't know, it might be Yijun?
… I don't think there are no ligatures in Chinese
… I think we should remove this section
xfq: If we can't clarify this, we should delete it.
Eric: Before removing this section, let’s ask Yijun first.
Bobby: on GitHub
Next telecon time
November 11 (Wednesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)