Meeting minutes
Go through the pull request list
https://
w3c/clreq#549
All: agreed to merge
w3c/clreq#548
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://
w3c/clreq#544
Zhengyu: I'm not sure "Chinese" means in w3c/
[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://
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)