13:32:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #i18n
13:33:03 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-i18n-irc
14:29:42 <addison> Meeting: Internationalization Working Group Teleconference
14:29:52 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/b7edae68-f52c-4aab-a1a6-3c37459e0786/20250320T150000/
14:29:52 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:29:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review
14:29:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Action Items
14:29:54 <agendabot> agenda+ Info Share
14:29:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Review Radar
14:29:57 <addison> Chair: Addison Phillips
14:29:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Pending Issues
14:30:01 <agendabot> agenda+ Logical values for the touch-action property
14:30:03 <agendabot> agenda+ Specdev Pull Requests
14:30:05 <agendabot> agenda+ AOB?
14:47:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-i18n-minutes.html addison
14:52:52 <addison> present+
15:01:59 <addison> present+ Fuqiao, Nat McCully
15:02:43 <addison> present+ Richard
15:04:24 <addison> present+ Bert
15:04:59 <addison> Nat: wondering about the state of Korean Layout Requirements
15:05:16 <addison> Richard: it would be great if we could get some Korean folks and yourself involved in the KLReq work
15:05:27 <addison> Nat: think @@1 is?
15:05:47 <addison> Richard: barrier to entry is low. if you want to contribute...
15:05:57 <addison> Nat: still own JLreq a ton of writing
15:06:11 <addison> ... will let you know what we find out
15:06:28 <addison> Richard: original KLReq written by Korean people
15:06:38 <addison> Nat: want the Web to have benefit of some of this research
15:06:53 <addison> ... transition away fron Japanese convention
15:07:24 <addison> ... started studying elsewhere than Japan, being born is a new native Korean aesthetic
15:07:49 <addison> Nat: very interested in formulating way to harmonize across scripts
15:08:19 <addison> ... baseline consistency, chaos because have to have heuristics for fonts
15:08:41 <addison> ... such as CJK and elevating the em box
15:09:08 <addison> agenda?
15:09:22 <Bert> scribe+
15:09:25 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 1
15:09:25 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:37 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 2
15:09:37 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Action Items -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:53 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues
15:09:58 <addison> #162
15:10:03 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/162 -> Action 162  poll I18N/CSS for new day/time (on aphillips) due 2025-03-25
15:10:23 <addison> #160
15:10:24 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/160 -> Action 160  review graphemes in specdev and add balinese example and otherwise fix the text (on aphillips) due 2025-03-06
15:10:24 <Bert> addison: No CSS people at the last meeting
15:10:47 <Bert> addison: Undertaken a large rewrite, see agenda
15:10:49 <addison> close #160
15:10:53 <gb> Closed -> issue #160 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/160
15:10:56 <addison> #159
15:10:57 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/159 -> Action 159  write up proposal for specdev char-string section, adding material that deals with the encoding interface et al (on aphillips) due 2025-02-27
15:11:05 <addison> #157
15:11:06 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/157 -> Action 157  write glossary proposal identifying options and next steps for those options (on aphillips) due 2025-02-20
15:11:17 <addison> #135
15:11:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/135 -> Action 135  follow up on XR issue 1393 about locale in session (on aphillips) due 2024-10-17
15:11:22 <addison> #127
15:11:22 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/127 -> Action 127  make a list of shared topics of interest between TG2 and W3C-I18N (on aphillips) due 2024-09-30
15:11:30 <addison> #89
15:11:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/89 -> Action 89  update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18
15:11:35 <addison> #33
15:11:36 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/33 -> Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips)
15:11:48 <addison> #7
15:11:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/7 -> Action 7 Remind shepherds to tend to their awaiting comment resolutions (Evergreen) (on aphillips, xfq, himorin, r12a, bert-github) due 18 Jul 2023
15:12:06 <Bert> addison: I moved 1 of the IETF docs
15:12:13 <addison> #4
15:12:14 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/4 -> Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on aphillips) due 27 Jul 2023
15:12:25 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 3
15:12:25 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Info Share -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:12:42 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 4
15:12:42 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review Radar -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:12:49 <addison> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91/views/1
15:13:27 <Bert> addison: New incoming request. Web Neural Networks. We reviewed this twice before.
15:13:39 <Bert> xfq: I can take it.
15:13:55 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 5
15:13:55 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Pending Issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:13:58 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apending
15:15:06 <Bert> xfq: Emphasis marks https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1995 is a minor issue
15:15:10 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1995 -> Issue 1995 Emphasis marks do not skip tilde (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:css-text-decor] [spec-type-issue] [clreq]
15:15:27 <Bert> ... tilde is used as punctuation.
15:15:49 <addison> agenda?
15:16:14 <Bert> r12a: I added i:emphasis label on the issue
15:16:26 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 6
15:16:26 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Logical values for the touch-action property -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:16:34 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/505
15:16:35 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/505 -> Issue 505 ‘Logical’ values for the ‘touch-action’ property (by aphillips) [i18n-needs-resolution] [future]
15:17:29 <Bert> addison: We suggested in June that they might have logical directions, not just physical directions.
15:17:55 <Bert> xfq: WG wants to add logical values in the next version and don't want to delay this version.
15:19:21 <Bert> addison: Sometimes it makes sense to have physical directions and mirroring doesn't apply. But we should do the right thing here. And questiom is if we eant to hold them up, as they have no implementation if this.
15:19:47 <Bert> xfq: It seems they do want to add it.
15:21:08 <xfq> scribe+
15:21:14 <xfq> Bert: this is for scrolling
15:21:19 <xfq> ... they have zooming too
15:21:31 <Bert> addison: Is this critical for bidi users?
15:22:25 <Bert> nat: JLReq points out that there is often mixed directions.
15:23:32 <Bert> ... Not familiar enough with the use cases. But want vertical text to work well for users.
15:24:00 <Bert> xfq: We don't remove the physical diretcions, authors can still use those.
15:24:40 <Bert> addison: Do Arabic speakers have to change their style sheets, when a logical direction would have given them the direction already.
15:24:59 <Bert> ... And is this important enough to block them from shipping their spec?
15:26:38 <addison> action: xfq: ask bidi related groups about pointerevents 505
15:26:47 <gb> Created -> action #163 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/163
15:26:47 <Bert> xfq: Maybe we can ask Arabic and Hebrew users in our groups for their opinion.
15:26:55 <addison> agenda?
15:27:08 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 7
15:27:08 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Specdev Pull Requests -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:27:18 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/155
15:27:19 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/155 -> Pull Request 155 Rework of the 'character' section (by aphillips)
15:27:24 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/154
15:27:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/bp-i18n-specdev/pull/154 -> Pull Request 154 Update the char truncation section (by aphillips)
15:27:27 <Bert> addison: There are two pull requests.
15:27:41 <Bert> ... Last week we merged the bigger rewrite of the character section.
15:28:06 <addison> https://deploy-preview-154--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_truncation
15:28:15 <Bert> ... Lets' start with section 1.54
15:28:43 <Bert> ... I rewrote example 16
15:29:01 <Bert> ... Breaking at graphme cluster and breaking at bytes.
15:29:31 <Bert> ... And limits on byte length when character need more bytes.
15:29:32 <xfq> rrsagent, make minutes
15:29:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-i18n-minutes.html xfq
15:30:16 <Bert> ... Richard pointed out that I used color to distinguish cases and I should use some markup instead.
15:36:29 <Bert> Bert: it reads well.
15:37:09 <Bert> ... maybe reduce the number of colors.
15:37:21 <addison> https://deploy-preview-155--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#characters
15:37:28 <Bert> addison: I'll eliminate some of the color. Do you want to see it again, or shall I just merge?
15:37:54 <Bert> ... Seems you don't want to see it again. :-)
15:38:51 <Bert> addison: character section ^^ not has a box at the start that says where to read explanation.
15:39:43 <Bert> ... I made a sort of glossary in order. So people get an idea why, eg., "character" is maybe not the term to use.
15:40:49 <Bert> ... I may need other examples than Devanagari, maybe I <heart> Unicode.
15:41:24 <Bert> xfq: Should the box apply to the whole of the section instead?
15:41:29 <Bert> addison: Yes, good catch.
15:42:09 <Bert> r12a: @@ need good definition.
15:42:26 <Bert> addison: Section 4.2 says what to do, use code point.
15:42:47 <Bert> r12a: We use the word "character", e.g., further down.
15:43:29 <Bert> ... "Use the term code point to refer to a Unicode character." but what is a Unicode character?
15:44:05 <Bert> ... At some point we had the first mustard say something like avoid character unless... etc.
15:44:44 <Bert> addison: Avoid character, even with a local definition, because it is easy to get confused.
15:45:05 <Bert> ... Advice to avoid the term, or define what you mean.
15:45:17 <Bert> r12a: "absctract character"
15:45:30 <Bert> addison: We actually don't have that in our glossary.
15:46:01 <Bert> r12a: We need to define it much more precisely.
15:46:22 <Bert> ... A bit contradictory at the moment.
15:47:04 <Bert> ... Tell me what you were thinking and I'll tell you how to write it.
15:47:39 <Bert> addison: Character set with abstract characters, which are not code points yet.
15:48:56 <Bert> r12a: I'll need to check the use of the term in our other texts now that I understand what you mean.
15:49:18 <addison> https://www.unicode.org/glossary/#abstract_character
15:49:39 <Bert> ... So: An abstract character is a notional item in a character set, before it is being assigned to a code point,
15:49:56 <Bert> addison: All these terms are vague, for a reason.
15:50:42 <Bert> r12a: May want to say that it is an item in the *UNicode* character set. There may be other character sets.
15:51:12 <Bert> addison: Is this text closer to the mark than previously?
15:51:27 <Bert> r12a: I think so, but it takes some time to review.
15:51:52 <Bert> addison: There are some left-over things.
15:52:15 <Bert> ... There is one other big chnage:
15:52:25 <Bert> ... Moved definition of string right after definitionof character.
15:52:51 <Bert> ... It felt weird not to put string directly after character.
15:53:09 <Bert> ... No changes to the section, though.
15:54:34 <Bert> addison: Last week's merged text is in the version on GitHub, but not in the published version yet.
15:54:56 <r12a> https://deploy-preview-155--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_display
15:55:20 <Bert> r12a: "Specifications, software and content MUST NOT require or depend on a one-to-one mapping between characters and visual text units."
15:55:40 <Bert> ... I think text units is a mistake.
15:55:51 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/#char_display
15:55:55 <Bert> ... Explanation missing that these are glyphs from a font.
15:56:49 <Bert> ... What is meant is glyph, not visual text unit.
15:57:07 <Bert> ... And explanation of what is a glyph.
15:57:37 <Bert> addison: It doesn't talk about fonts, but it could do.
15:58:09 <Bert> ... Should introduce explanation of code point and grapheme cluster to glyph?
15:58:16 <Bert> r12a: Not sure you need to.
15:58:41 <Bert> addison: Trying to minimalist in what we introduce.
15:59:01 <Bert> ... The Hindi example was useful, because I could return to it later.
15:59:28 <Bert> ... But it is all three bytes, so you don't see some of the other isses.
16:00:04 <Bert> ... Could do an example with a flag.
16:00:14 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/#char_term_def
16:00:19 <Bert> r12a: I mentioned before about defining a character set.
16:00:20 <r12a> Specifications SHOULD explicitly define the term 'character' to mean a Unicode code point.
16:00:36 <Bert> ... This ^^ is what we have.
16:00:37 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/#char_specific
16:00:44 <r12a> Specifications SHOULD use specific terms, when available, instead of the general term 'character'.
16:00:56 <r12a> When specifications use the term 'character' the specifications MUST define which meaning they intend, and SHOULD explicitly define the term 'character' to mean a Unicode code point.
16:02:00 <Bert> ... There is a bit of repetition between the above. But says that, if you use characte, syou shoulkd define it. And shold probably add: and use it consistently.
16:02:13 <addison> > Specifications SHOULD use the term code point instead of the term 'character'. If the term 'character' is used, it MUST be explicitly defined to mean a Unicode code point. The term Unicode Scalar Value MAY also be used.
16:03:05 <Bert> ... I was never entirely happy with defining abstract character. Prefer to define character to be what you want and then use that.
16:03:15 <Bert> addison: But this is advice to spec writers.
16:03:49 <Bert> r12a: Not sure we need to push them to mean a specific thing, as long as they define what they mean.
16:04:07 <Bert> addison: And then we tell them when they are wrong? OK.
16:04:22 <Bert> ... Example 7: I wanted to make a better guide for spec writers.
16:04:49 <Bert> ... Like some of the things in richard's articles.
16:05:36 <Bert> ... Thinking of the styling. Do you [Richard] have examples?
16:06:08 <Bert> r12a: I like a red cross, but that is usually for code.
16:06:43 <addison> zakim, take up agendum 8
16:06:43 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- AOB? -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-i18n-minutes.html addison
16:07:03 <addison> zakim, bye
16:07:04 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been addison, Fuqiao, Nat, McCully, Richard, Bert
16:07:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #i18n