Meeting minutes
<gb> Issue 634 not found
Agenda Review
<gb> Issue 634 not found
Action Items
<addison> https://
<addison> #157
<gb> Action 157 write glossary proposal identifying options and next steps for those options (on aphillips) due 2025-02-20
<addison> #16
<gb> Action 16 Keep track of line-breaking in Korean for i18n-discuss#11 (on aphillips) due 1 Jan 2024
addison: shipping final version of message format
<addison> #156
<gb> Action 156 Figure out what is preferred for Fig 15 at https://r12a.github.io/scripts/bopomofo/ontheweb#horhor (on r12a) due 2025-01-28
r12a: raised queation to influensers
<addison> close #156
<gb> Closed issue #156
<addison> #155
<gb> Action 155 review glossary definitions for normativity or candidates for normativity (on aphillips) due 2025-01-23
r12a: and can close 156
<addison> close #155
<gb> Closed issue #155
addison: did for 155
<addison> #142
<gb> Action 142 check if we can publish the new version of jlreq (on himorin) due 2024-11-21
<addison> #135
<gb> Action 135 follow up on XR issue 1393 about locale in session (on aphillips) due 2024-10-17
<addison> #127
<gb> Action 127 make a list of shared topics of interest between TG2 and W3C-I18N (on aphillips) due 2024-09-30
<addison> #89
<gb> Action 89 update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18
<addison> #33
<gb> Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips)
<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: 33, cleaned up this week
<addison> #4
<gb> Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on aphillips) due 27 Jul 2023
Info Share
[silent]
RADAR Review
<addison> https://
addison: WebAuthn?
Pending Issues
<addison> https://
<addison> i18n-activity#1971
<gb> Issue 1971 Clarification on `unicode-bidi` for `input type text` and `ruby` (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:html] [whatwg] [Agenda+]
<addison> whatwg/html#10896
<gb> Issue 10896 Clarification on `unicode-bidi` for `input type text` and `ruby` (by Ahmad-S792) [topic: rendering] [topic: forms] [i18n-tracker]
addison: 1971, on html 10896, on ruby with bidi
… specific issue on isolate
atsushi: in JL-TF, this is considered as a sort of edge case, similar to bidi in vertical writing
r12a: question is why you wouldn't want to isolate ruby elements
ACTION: himorin: research activity 1971 (html 10896) about ruby bidi isolation with jltf
<gb> Created action #158
<gb> Issue 634 not found
I18N+CSS Call
Update qa-indic-graphemes.en.html (PR #634)
<addison> https://
<addison> https://
<r12a> https://
r12a: material is url above
[introducing concerning points and updates]
r12a: this points to new version of article
addison: sounds good for me on this article, any objection?
<atsushi> +1
<r12a> https://
r12a: above link, doing the same thing as gap analysis document
addison: continue to push into other gap documents?
<xfq> "The problem remains for several other scripts"
[discussion on differences around analyses:
Specdev changes related to ByteString
<addison> w3c/
<gb> Issue 151 Mention `IsomorphicString` and update `ByteString` guidance appropriately (by aphillips) [bug] [Agenda+] [Best Practice]
<addison> bp-i18n-specdev#152
<gb> Issue 152 DOMString and protocols (by martinthomson) [bug] [Agenda+] [Best Practice]
addison: this is on section in spec-dev on DOMString
<addison> https://
<addison> w3ctag/
<gb> Issue 454 I18N string best practices vs. design-principles (by aphillips) [Status: In Progress] [Status: Consensus to write] [Agenda+] [i18n-needs-resolution]
addison: our bitestring text is slightly different from commenter suggested
<addison> w3c/
<gb> Issue 152 DOMString and protocols (by martinthomson) [bug] [Agenda+] [Best Practice]
addison: unclear point between what this points to, in DOMString / ByteString
r12a: for representation of string, need to consider its presentation
addison: talking about actual layout of protocol, it's could be how encoded, not bytestring but sort of encoding
… might not write in detail in specification
JcK: more complexed point, for specification, how to composed for transmission another transformation might be applied, in underlayer protocol
r12a: meaning application protocol should not define details?
addison: binary data or sequence could be said as specific one, but not for wire transfered data
r12a: something complex than current ones, needed?
addison: there is sequence of bytes, any other representations could be over bytes
<addison> An isomorphic string is a string whose code points are all in the range U+0000 NULL to U+00FF (ÿ), inclusive.
addison: as Unicode, above
addison: probably need to add some text here
… bytestring is distinct from other stuff,,, or something?
<addison> The ByteString type corresponds to byte sequences.
<addison> https://
<xfq> "Specifications should only use ByteString for interfacing with protocols that use bytes and strings interchangeably, such as HTTP."
addison: need to work on proposal here, but wanted to talk within group
<addison> https://
addison: some separate document about byte and stuff...?
addison: I may write something, as wiki like document as starter
ACTION: addison: write up proposal for specdev char-string section, adding material that deals with the encoding interface et al
<gb> Created action #159
<gb> Issue 634 not found
AOB?
r12a: looking in charmod fundamentals
<r12a> https://
addison: maybe what we want to publlish is a new note that supersedes fundamentals
… which just has the core terminology stuff
xfq: if the note is not long, we can just use specdev
JcK: I worry a little bit about pushing too much into specdev, since nobody's going to look at specdev when developing a spec, isn't it?
addison: seek to pull out and write as some text