Meeting minutes
Go through the pull request list
https://
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/pull/362
[Zhengyu introduces his edits]
Eric: looks good to me
xfq: the English translation needs updating
xfq: in 4.1.3
Eric: Let’s merge first, this section needs a lot of other changes, we can change it together at that time
Eric: Delete the part before "Accordingly" first
xfq: I'll update the PR and merge it
xfq: can we close #354 now?
Eric: I think so
Zhengyu: agreed
Go through the issue list
https://
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/366
xfq: I don’t think it’s written clearly enough here
… Do we need to reorganize the language here?
Eric: Zhengyu has replied
[Zhengyu introduces his reply]
Zhengyu: We can adjust the wording a bit
xfq_: "if two punctuation marks" -> "if any two adjacent punctuation marks"
[Zhengyu introduces his second reply]
Zhengyu: Adjustment of adjacent punctuation marks in Chinese is discrete, not continuous.
Zhengyu: Usually only half or one-quarter of the character width can be adjusted at a time, but it cannot be adjusted by 0.6 character width.
… Do we need to add some rationale and background information for this?
… there's some background information in 3.1.6.1 Punctuation Adjustment Space
[Discuss font issues]
Zhengyu: The reader may not understand why it is 1 or 1.5 character width(s)
Zhengyu: but it takes a lot of time to write the rationale clearly
Eric: yes
xfq_: I will send a PR
xfq_: 两个符号 -> 任意两个相邻标点符号
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/365
Eric: I checked the national standard
Eric: it should be consistent
Eric: we should use U+2014 Em Dash
Zhengyu: Even if the national standard is not considered, I think U+2014 is better
… No spaces on both sides
Eric: I'll comment on the issue
… we can refer to 《GB/T 1.1—2020 标准化工作导则第1部分 标准化文件的结构和起草规则》
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/352
xfq_: Zhengyu's proposed text looks good to me
xfq_: can you send a PR, Zhengyu?
Zhengyu: yes
Eric: the word 体裁 should not be used in clreq
[Discuss the Chinese translation of the word "bibliography"]
xfq_: 参考文献 is often used
xfq_: 参考书目 is not as common as 参考文献
Zhengyu: As long as the translation is consistent it's fine
Eric: let's use 参考文献
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/351
xfq_: We should add figures
Eric: I will add figures. Huijing, can you help translate it into English?
huijing: will do
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/348
Eric: please review and comment on this issue
Eric: it takes too much time to discuss this issue at the meeting
Zhengyu: I filed https://
https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/341
[Discussions about the terminology]
[Discuss font issues about U+2E3A and U+2014]
Eric: I don't think it is appropriate to use "two-em rule"
Zhengyu: We can keep the word "dash"
Zhengyu: The word 破折号 was translated by Hu Shih and others
Zhengyu: If we don’t keep the word "dash", we need to create a new word
Eric: I think creating a new word is not very practical
Eric: any objections using two-em dash?
Zhengyu: There will be a little problem with "two-em dash" as I said in https://
Zhengyu: If we don’t consider historical issues, I think it’s okay to use "two-em dash"
Eric: agreed
huijing: I think "two-em dash" is easy to understand
xfq: I'll send a PR
Next teleconference time
June 16 (Wednesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)