Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
addison: Anything to add to the agenda?
Action Items
<gb> Found actions in w3c/i18n-actions: #75, #74, #72, #68, #66, #53, #43, #35, #33, #18, #16, #12, #11, #8, #7, #4
<addison> #75
<gb> Action 75 work on developing new specdev material about IDNs/domain names/etc. (on xfq) due 2024-02-29
<addison> #72
<gb> Action 72 update specdev to match string-meta with string/block direction as appropriate (on aphillips) due 2024-02-22
<addison> #66
<gb> Action 66 fix base direction vs. paragraph direction in string-meta (on aphillips) due 2024-01-18
addison: edits done, topic for today
<addison> #43
<gb> Action 43 pull together the list of win/mac/etc apis for setting base direction and/or language (on aphillips) due 2023-09-18
<addison> #35
<gb> Action 35 make the edits of CSS #5478 (on fantasai) due 2023-08-30
<addison> #33
<gb> Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips)
<addison> #18
addison: closed a couple, down to 22 open
<gb> Action 18 Have informal explanation sessions about counter style translations with csswg members (on frivoal, fantasai) due 18 Jul 2023
<addison> #12
<gb> Action 12 Upgrade/edit the explainer to address issues raised by google (on aphillips) due 18 Jul 2023
<addison> #8
<gb> Action 8 Follow up on the status of Canvas and formatted text (on aphillips) due 18 Jul 2023
<addison> #7
<gb> Action 7 Remind shepherds to tend to their awaiting comment resolutions (Evergreen) (on aphillips, xfq, himorin, r12a, bert-github) due 18 Jul 2023
<addison> #4
<gb> Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on r12a) due 27 Jul 2023
Info Share
addison: My long-standing message format thing got accepted by Unicode. May now have time for other things. :-)
RADAR Review
<addison> https://
addison: Objection to moving webnn to complete?
… OK, will move it. And will send them a note
… I'll aske for more time to review ARIA. Anybody can help to review?
Pending Issue Review
<addison> https://
String-Meta
<addison> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 84 Implement the terms 'string direction' and 'block direction' in place of 'paragrah direction' (by aphillips)
<addison> https://
addison: replacing "paragraph direction" term.
… Thanks, r12a, for comments.
xfq: Haven't had time ot review the updated version yet.
JcK: Same
addison: Do you want to review it still?
JcK: I'm happy to accept it
xfq: Same, we can always come back to it later.
addison: OK, merged just now and I will publish it
… Look out for term clashes with CSS.
<addison> https://
<xfq> there's a 'block flow direction' in CSS: https://
addison: 2nd thing in string meta:
… direction usually needed.
r12a: I thought this was not targeted at content author.
<addison> w3c/
r12a: I thought q was if you needed diretcion specified for every item.
<gb> Issue 1424 Unnecessary direction attribute? (by iherman) [editorial] [CR2]
r12a: Nothing to do with the HTML.
addison: I meant by authoring guidelines, when do I need to include @direction, say in JSON.
… It is more content guidelines than authoring guidelines.
… And about examples in specs, which have bidi
… Do we require them to have @direction?
r12a: So what about my proposed comment?
addison: I don't disagree with it. The challenge is if people can determine if first-strong will work.
… So I'd say you should include direction unless you know better,
… rather than inlcude direction only if needed.
r12a: In theroy, if you got a default for the whole set, you should not need the direction for individual items.
… If you don't have a default, and the spec requires strong-first, then if you ar enot sure about the first character, you need direction.
… and for the rest you can include it to be safe.
addison: Do we develiop this guidance in string-meta?
r12a: I thought it already said this.
… But would't hurt to have a section for people who are creating sets of strings.
addison: We mostly have text about what specs should do, or implementers, but not a lot for producers.
xfq: Agree that guidelines for producers would be useful. At least highlighted for this audience.
ACTION: addison: propose best practices for producers and for examples in specs in string-meta
<gb> Created action #76
r12a: Would have to say "guidelines for people creating sets of strings".
addison: Machines could be producers, too.
r12a: But the guidelines are for humans.
addison: I'll propose some text.
r12a: Use this comment. Can I sent it?
addison: Yes, please.
Editors/authors acknowledgements
<addison> https://
addison: ^^ florian's response, includes r12a's mail.
<addison> Richard's email: https://
r12a: We have new publication rules that mean you cannot inlude long lists of contributors, only active editors.
… Editor may be just somebody who accepts pull requests and edits, and maybe contributes text himself.
… So how do you recognize the other people who contributed most of the content?
… Call them "author"?
… But somebody who reviewed a doc and made suggestions, is that an author?
… And if that somebody reviewd and contributed to just one section?
… An author could be many things. From a list of names you don't know what they did.
… Unicode has an Acknowledgements section, which explains what people did.
… That section is at the bottom and probably many people never read it.
… So I'm discussing that with the editorial committee and asking if it can be moved to the very top.
<r12a> https://
r12a: ^^ example with acks before the introduction section.
… Given that we have to be conservative in naming editors, what is the best way to recognize those other people?
addison: I have seen docs with lengthy lists of editors.
r12a: We cannot do that anymore, the editors now need to be active in the WG.
addison: And authors?
r12a: They are not restricted, but a simple list doesn't explain what they did.
addison: In Message Formats I'm listed as editor, and I'd like to recognize a few people, and then there are many more people that contributed.
… I don't want to lose people because they are not the committer of an edit.
… The document should honor the contributors.
<r12a> https://
r12a: It is not as easy as it sounds. We have called all contributors "authors" for that reason in the past.
… ^^ here is an example ack section used by Unicode.
… We should make a proposal.
… Initially just for us, but eventually for all of W3C.
… Will lead to changes in ReSpec.
… If we can use i18n docs as examples to see how it works, that would be useful.
<r12a> https://
xfq: I think I'd like a short editors list and a prominent ack list, maybe with a link to it from the meta data in the head.
<r12a> https://
xfq: Move the ack section up and make it more prominent, including with a link to it
<xfq> HTML: https://
addison: Do I need to comment on the thread?
… It should be in the list of the group that that spec design.
<xfq> w3c/specberus, w3c/tr-design, w3c/respec, and/or tobie/specref maybe
<xfq> also the spec-prod@ list
addison: We can try it for a while.
bert: My experience is that it is not actually easy to write a good ack section, but I agree it is a good thing to have.
r12a: But at least get the major contributors, even if you forget some of the smaller ones over time.
… and you can findon GitHub all the people that did pull requests.
addison: Let's see for a bit how it works.
WHATWG + I18N call review
<addison> https://
<addison> whatwg/
<gb> Pull Request 5799 Fix #4562: add support for internationalized email addresses (by aphillips) [addition/proposal] [needs implementer interest] [topic: forms] [i18n-tracker]
addison: "host string" vs "domain string" in HTML. But I think there will be no additional validation rules.
r12a: BAsically, as long as there is an "@" in the middle.
… I'll try to rebase the github pull request and address the comment.
<r12a> w3c/
<addison> #73
r12a: I'm assuming I now need to open issue in WhatWG with our recommendation to revisit this and create named entitiies for this list, with the compiled info in that issue.
addison: There are other open an issue.
r12a: But they don't address the whole thing.
ACTION: richard: create an issue against html requesting the list of named entities based on work in #73
<gb> Created action #77
<r12a> #77 note: w3c/
<gb> Action 77 create an issue against html requesting the list of named entities based on work in #73 (on r12a) due 2024-03-07
<r12a> note #77: w3c/
<gb> Added comment
<gb> Issue 1815 Discuss i18n-glossary and Infra harmonization (by aphillips) [pending] [Agenda+I18N+WHATWG] [s:infra] [whatwg]
ACTION: addison: compare infra to i18n-glossary export list and report back
<gb> Created action #78
addison: I'll make a list and we'll see how we compare.
ACTION: addison: schedule a follow-up call with WHATNOT in ~April
<gb> Created action #79