Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review

Action Items

<addison> #93

<gb> Action 93 create best practices for consumers in string-meta (on aphillips) due 2024-04-25

<addison> #92

<gb> Action 92 fix the rfc3066bis page (on xfq) due 2024-04-25

<addison> close #92

<gb> Closed issue #92

<addison> #91

<gb> Action 91 respond to i18n-activity#1846 (malformed bidi in HTML) (on aphillips) due 2024-04-25

<addison> close #91

<gb> Closed issue #91

<addison> #90

<gb> Action 90 steal some of henri's text from scroll-to-text-fragment for string-search (on aphillips) due 2024-04-18

<addison> #89

<gb> Action 89 update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18

<addison> fuqiao: few issues in tr-design and respec. in progrss

<addison> #87

<gb> Action 87 write to IETF ADs about RFC9457 with JcK's assistance (on aphillips) due 2024-04-04

<addison> #79

<gb> Action 79 schedule a follow-up call with WHATNOT in ~April (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

<addison> #78

<gb> Action 78 compare infra to i18n-glossary export list and report back (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

<addison> #77

<gb> Action 77 create an issue against html requesting the list of named entities based on work in action 73 (on r12a) due 2024-03-07

<addison> close #77

<gb> Closed issue #77

<addison> #75

<gb> Action 75 work on developing new specdev material about IDNs/domain names/etc. (on xfq) due 2024-02-29

<addison> close #75

<gb> Closed issue #75

<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> #33

<gb> Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips)

<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

JcK: IETF comment
… the AD @@1
… I did asked a question about @@ BCP 14

RADAR Review

<addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/projects/1

addison: Bert, how is Pointer Events Level 3 coming?

Bert: not done yet

Pending Issue Review

<addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apending

<addison> i18n-activity#1841

<gb> Issue 1841 Request for additional named entities for invisible/ambiguous characters (by r12a) [pending] [s:html] [t:char_ref]

New section about IDNs

<addison> w3c/bp-i18n-specdev#128

<gb> Pull Request 128 New section about IDNs (by xfq)

https://deploy-preview-128--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#resid_misc

https://deploy-preview-128--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#idn

<addison> xfq: changed first one to point to idna2008

<addison> ... annevk made some comments, pointing to URL spec and maybe unicode's TR

https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-domain-to-ascii

<addison> ... in the URL spec there is this link ^^

<addison> ... that refers to UTS46 with some flags set

<addison> jck: let me try to summarize

JcK: using IDNA by way of UTS 46 started out by contradicting IDNA 2008 and it's gotten worse

<addison> ... using idna by way of uts46 (which somewhat conflicts)

JcK: this request makes no sense
… yes, there are caveats
… but basically we're in a situation where we have different standards
… I don't know what to suggest doing
… I can sit down and review but I don't have the time now
… from a WHATWG standpoint, it definitely makes perfect sense
… but that's not consistent

addison: making a couple observations
… first is just a stylistic thing
… you have 2119 keywords
… should and should not should be capiitalized
… I think we don't actually have to weigh into some of these religious arguments
… because I think it would be non-controversial to say replace any references to 2003 with 2008
… I think it's good guidance
… the second one is to not refer to Punycode because it's incomplete
… the URL spec is maybe good for what browsers do
… but is incomplete because it does not cover all of URI
… and the UTS 46 thing is just somebody needs to @@

JcK: saying this less rather than more is probably a reasonable short-term strategy

addison: I was gonna suggest maybe we could just describe what the situation is
… xfq started this because we encountered people referring to Punycode

ACTION: xfq: send jck the text from proposed idn section to jck for suggestions

<gb> Created action #94

CFC: Publish HTML Ruby Markup Extensions FPWD

<addison> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2024AprJun/0022.html

<addison> https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/

<addison> https://www.w3.org/2022/02/ruby-agreement

r12a: it's the stuff Florian has been working on

<addison> w3c/htmlwg#26

<gb> Issue 26 CFC: Publish HTML Ruby Markup Extensions FPWD (by LJWatson)

r12a: the i18n WG should review

addison: which one of these is the document?

r12a: I haven't checked it yet

atsushi: this is for the W3C HTML WG
… independent from WHATWG
… this matches the CSS Ruby spec

r12a: we tried to get it directly into the HTML Standard
… the conclusion was that we would publish this document
… and we would put everything into the HTML Standard
… it's a FPWD of a document that's been around for like 10 years or something

atsushi: per WHATWG and W3C MoU, the HTML WG has been working on this in the past 2 years

addison: but we should endorse this, right?

<Bert> +1

atsushi: I think so

<addison> +1

<r12a> +1

<atsushi> +1

<xfq> +1

<JcK> +1

RESOLUTION: I18N WG endorses FPWD publication of HTML Ruby Markup Extensions

ACTION: addison: write endorsement of html ruby markup extensions

<gb> Created action #95

First draft of Language Negotiation

<addison> https://github.com/aphillips/i18n-drafts/blob/gh-pages/tutorials/language-negotiation/language-negotiation.md

<addison> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2024AprJun/0017.html

addison: I have created a first draft of a document about language negotiation
… I welcome comments

Bert: it mentions IP address as a way of finding the user's location
… I think there might be a note saying that is very unreliable

addison: yes

r12a: how are you gonna publish this? as an article?

addison: currently parked under tutorials, but it doesn't have to stay there

r12a: no it shouldn't
… we use the term 'tutorial' term different
… we have lots of articles that teaches stuff
… but they're articles, not tutorials
… we have tutorials that contains a series of links
… for a larger view of a topic
… go and read this and this and this
… so this would be an article

addison: I created a markdown page
… I think it's easier to review

r12a: is there a reason you didn't use GitHub Discussions?

<addison> ```suggestion

addison: because I want to be a little bit formal

addison: it's an early working draft
… quicker than making the HTML and being super formal

r12a: when you do the pre-HTML version, then use Discussions for that

<addison> w3c/i18n-drafts#581

<gb> Pull Request 581 Initial work on language-negotiation materials (by aphillips)

addison: there is a PR against the w3c repo
… see ^
… you can comment on the markdown
… I'll move this from tutorials to articles
… comments are welcome