W3C

– DRAFT –
Chinese Layout Task Force Teleconference

30 May 2023

Attendees

Present
Bobby, Eric, huijing, xfq__, Zhengyu
Regrets
-
Chair
xfq__
Scribe
xfq__

Meeting minutes

Go through the pull request list

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

w3c/clreq#549

All: agreed to merge

w3c/clreq#548

w3c/clreq#546

xfq: The Chinese and English text here do not match and need to be modified.

[xfq introduces the issue]

Eric: the English text makes sense
… the Chinese text is not good
… 以下标点符号占用两个汉字的空间,在行间应为一体,视作一个字符存在,不能为了适配分行而拆成两行。
… can be changed to:
… 以下标点符号占用两个汉字的空间,应视为一体,不能拆成两行。
… 但若遇连续多个标点符号
… can be changed to:
… 但若这些标点符号连续出现多个

w3c/clreq#547

[xfq introduces the changes to README.md]

All: looks good

w3c/clreq#542

Eric: I think 2.3.5.4 is better than "section 2" or "above"

Eric: because it's more specific

Eric: I wrote this sentence

xfq: what about the link?

Eric: link is good

xfq: OK, I'll merge this PR

Go through the issue list

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

w3c/clreq#544

Zhengyu: I'm not sure "Chinese" means in w3c/clreq#help-wanted

[xfq introduces the background and shows other lreq repos]

[Discuss the English text]

Eric: clreq is different from afrlreq/alreq/iip/sealreq etc.

Eric: because it has only one writing system

xfq: Zhengyu, please send a pull request for the English and Chinese text

Zhengyu: OK

w3c/clreq#543

Eric: I personally don't think we need `text-align: justify` for clreq

xfq: I think our document should be a good example
… As an example of good typography

Bobby: Chinese only? or English as well?

xfq: Chinese only

Eric: I don’t know if the inter-character spacing will look better after justification
… what do you think?

xfq: Ideally, our document should match what we say

Eric: ok

xfq: I will send a PR, let's see the rendered result, if there is no obvious problem, I'll merge it, otherwise I'll close the PR

Eric: There should be little difference with or without justification

Bobby: The biggest problem is when a long URL appears

Bobby: but we don't have long URLs in our document

Eric: agreed

Eric: let's try it

Eric: If people find it ugly, we can revert it

w3c/clreq#536

Eric: Min Chinese, Hakka Chinese, Cantonese all have various romanizations

Bobby: and Bopomofo extension for Hakka Chinese
… Old National Pronunciation (老國音)

xfq: Jyutping is widely used, though

Bobby: How is it different from Hànyǔ Pīnyīn?

Eric: Tones are handled differently, they use European numerals
… no big difficulty

Bobby: There is nothing special about their typography

xfq: OK, I'll close this issue with wontfix
… since we already have https://w3c.github.io/clreq/#id122

Bobby: there are too many romanization systems for Taiwanese Hokkien

w3c/clreq#538

All: agreed to change to Bopomofo (Zhuyin fuhao) when first appeared, and use Bopomofo for all other cases

xfq: I'll change the text

w3c/clreq#537

[Discuss the frequency of various brackets]

Eric: The source is the input method

Eric: for example, because U+3008 LEFT ANGLE BRACKET [〈] is not easy to type

Eric: people use U+003C Less-Than Sign [<] instead, even in official documents

[Discuss differences in the frequency of brackets in print publications and social networks]

Zhengyu: what about removing the sentence "These brackets and quotation marks are rarely used in Chinese publications"?
… because they are not rare
… that's the easiest fix
… the level of frequency has nothing to do with typesetting requirements
… even if it has a 1% probability of use, we should treat it equally with other punctuation
… unless such punctuation occurs only in extremely rare styles

Eric: I agree with Zhengyu
… GB 2312 referred to the Japanese national standards when it was formulated

xfq: I'll remove this sentence then

Eric: Whether to use these punctuation marks is an editorial issue, not a typographical issue

Next teleconference time

June 27 (Tuesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 217 (Fri Apr 7 17:23:01 2023 UTC).