13:28:36 RRSAgent has joined #i18n 13:28:40 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-irc 13:28:51 Meeting: Internationalization Working Group Teleconference 13:28:55 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/b7edae68-f52c-4aab-a1a6-3c37459e0786/20250410T150000/ 13:28:55 clear agenda 13:28:55 agenda+ Agenda Review 13:28:55 agenda+ Action Items 13:28:57 agenda+ Info Share 13:28:59 agenda+ Review RADAR Review 13:29:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-minutes.html addison 13:29:04 agenda+ Pending Issues Review 13:29:04 agenda+ AOB? 13:29:07 Chair: Addison Phillips 13:36:59 gb has joined #i18n 13:59:13 present+ Addison 14:01:06 atsushi has joined #i18n 14:02:38 JcK has joined #i18n 14:03:07 present+ Richard, Fuqiao, Atsushi 14:03:41 scribe: xfq 14:04:10 zakim, take up agendum 1 14:04:10 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:04:12 agenda? 14:04:53 zakim, take up agendum 2 14:04:53 agendum 2 -- Action Items -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:05:01 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues 14:05:07 #165 14:05:08 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/165 -> Action 165 add a conformance section to suppress the respec warning to specdev (on aphillips) due 2025-04-10 14:05:27 #164 14:05:28 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/164 -> Action 164 add the google local fonts proposal to future agenda (on aphillips) due 2025-04-10 14:05:41 addison: google local font proposal, I'll add to next week's agenda 14:05:47 #163 14:05:48 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/163 -> Action 163 ask bidi related groups about pointerevents 505 (on xfq) due 2025-03-27 14:06:10 present+ JcK 14:06:22 xfq: did this. saw some replies that logical versions of pan pointer events could be useful 14:07:07 agenda+ discuss pointerevent 505 14:07:18 #162 14:07:18 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/162 -> Action 162 poll I18N/CSS for new day/time (on aphillips) due 2025-03-25 14:07:57 addison: I'll keep 163 for now 14:07:58 #159 14:07:59 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 14:08:05 #157 14:08:06 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 14:08:13 #136 14:08:14 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/136 -> Issue 136 follow up on XML errata (by aphillips) [task] 14:08:20 ... #160, I finally got a reply from florian, I'm going to hold this for now 14:08:20 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/160 -> CLOSED Action 160 review graphemes in specdev and add balinese example and otherwise fix the text (on aphillips) due 2025-03-06 14:08:35 #135 14:08:35 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 14:08:44 #127 14:08:44 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 14:08:52 #89 14:08:52 ... XML errata, next week I should have an answer 14:08:52 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/89 -> Action 89 update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18 14:08:58 #33 14:08:59 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/33 -> Action 33 Close issues marked `close?` or bring to WG for further review (on aphillips) 14:09:05 #7 14:09:06 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 14:09:54 #4 14:09:55 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 14:10:08 zakim, take up agendum 3 14:10:08 agendum 3 -- Info Share -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:10:16 q+ 14:10:59 present+ 14:11:01 addison: I saw JcK's email on the art list, I started writing a response 14:11:14 ack next 14:13:05 zakim, take up agendum 4 14:13:05 agendum 4 -- Review RADAR Review -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:13:29 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91/views/1 14:14:14 zakim, take up agendum 5 14:14:14 agendum 5 -- Pending Issues Review -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:14:22 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apending 14:14:59 agenda? 14:15:06 zakim, take up agendum 7 14:15:06 agendum 7 -- discuss pointerevent 505 -- taken up [from addison] 14:15:32 pointerevents#505 14:15:32 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/505 -> Issue 505 ‘Logical’ values for the ‘touch-action’ property (by aphillips) [i18n-needs-resolution] [future] 14:15:45 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/272 14:15:45 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/272 -> Issue 272 Add logical dimension values for touch-action property, since logical is/has shipped (by jonjohnjohnson) [future] 14:16:14 https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/289 14:16:14 https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/289 -> Issue 289 Should `touch-action` support logical directions like `pan-inline` / `pan-block`? (by xfq) [question] [i:bidi_text] [i:interaction] [l:arb] [l:pes] [l:ug] [l:ur] [l:ks] [l:ku] 14:16:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-minutes.html addison 14:17:19 q+ 14:17:25 xfq: the pan-inline could be useful. you could use css rules or js to do this currently. 14:17:43 ... they won't add in L3 and add in L4. already a PR for that to work on in L4. 14:17:46 ack next 14:17:55 scribe+ 14:19:06 r12a: I read this alreq issues and people saying oh yeah it's necessary here's an example 14:19:18 ... but I couldn't see why you needed logical values for those examples 14:20:39 addison: I think what r12a's trying to say is is there a moment when you would want the pan direction to be different than the different than the touch event direction 14:23:03 addison: so the reason to use logical rather than physical would be to say I want to restrict scrolling to only be left or right or up or down without having to specify the specific direction you're locking it off from 14:23:29 ... you would use this property to say don't allow this page to scroll horizontally 14:24:48 Bert: I think the use case is to @@1 14:25:06 ... to say that gesture should be passed on rather than ignored you use this property 14:26:02 ... the logical values mean you can scroll in the forward direction whatever that forward direction is 14:26:08 rrsagent, make minutes 14:26:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-minutes.html xfq 14:28:21 addison: I would prefer if in the future CSS started from logical and add physical when physical has more meaning 14:28:44 ... in this case actions are almost always in a physical direction regardless of how the text is laid out 14:28:55 ... so I get the need for physical directions 14:29:36 JcK has joined #i18n 14:30:53 r12a: one possibility is if you're not touching the screen because you don't have hands or you are not able to get closer to the screen, you could issue a voice command that says pan forward and then you'd have to know where forward was 14:32:25 ... my initial assumption would be that it has to use the direction of the document 14:32:37 JcK has joined #i18n 14:33:19 Bert: the whole thing of the property is you make a movement it cannot be used for scrolling but please don't ignore it and turn it into a pointer event and send it up to the parent element or whatever 14:33:25 ... script handler 14:33:55 addison: it generates a pointer event that isn't consumed by the scrolling action and it's handed to you to do something with 14:34:02 ... this is a way to hook that 14:34:23 ... so that I can do something else 14:34:44 ... like if you get to the top of a page and you pull down 14:35:04 Bert: I think it's okay to leave this to later if you add logical values later 14:35:23 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/496 14:35:24 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/496 -> Pull Request 496 Add logical/abstract values for `touch-action` (by patrickhlauke) [future] 14:35:26 s/pan forward and then you'd have to know where forward was/pan forward and then you'd have to know where forward was?/ 14:35:30 ... I think that doesn't remove any of the current functionality 14:36:27 https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/289#issuecomment-2786402829 14:36:28 https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/289 -> Issue 289 Should `touch-action` support logical directions like `pan-inline` / `pan-block`? (by xfq) [question] [i:bidi_text] [i:interaction] [l:arb] [l:pes] [l:ug] [l:ur] [l:ks] [l:ku] 14:36:37 addison: xfq asked some bidi people, and at least a couple of them came back with yeah this is a real thing 14:36:42 ... there's a video of this ^ 14:37:47 r12a: what's different there actually I think is the transition direction 14:38:09 addison: by having logical values you could just program at once 14:38:25 ... you just pan-inline-start and it pulls from that side of the screen 14:38:41 ... rather than having to have a set of pointer events for rtl and ltr layouts 14:39:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-minutes.html addison 14:41:07 In addition, it was noted that authors would likely use the directional touch-action in combination with overflow. It appears that currently, logical values for overflow are only in draft in their respective spec, so the general feeling was that merging #496 into the future/next version (Level 4, or potentially "living standard") is not going to be 14:41:07 a critical blocker right now for authors. 14:41:07 Issue 496 not found 14:42:04 addison: the reason that they're deferring to L4 is touch action is mainly used in combination with overflow and overflow is only kind of drafty 14:42:26 ... overflow doesn't have logical directions yet 14:42:52 ... they claim to want to do both in L4 14:43:33 ... we're requiring bidi people to rewrite things backwards 14:43:48 xfq: and people using vertical text 14:44:25 Bert: I don't mind postponing 14:44:44 addison: let me propose that we propose permit them to go forward with L3 14:45:01 ... ask they work really hard on getting it in L4 14:45:21 ... does that sound like the right result? 14:45:30 "These four properties form a logical property group together with the overflow shorthand, and interact as defined in CSS Logical Properties 1 § 4 Flow-Relative Box Model Properties." 14:45:38 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow/#overflow-control 14:45:43 action: addison: reply to pointerevents 505 14:45:50 Created -> action #166 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/166 14:45:51 close #163 14:45:54 Closed -> issue #163 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/163 14:46:32 Topic: specdev prs 14:47:19 https://deploy-preview-155--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#characters 14:48:00 addison: I made changes 14:48:00 https://deploy-preview-155--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#example-encoding-terminology-illustrated 14:48:07 ... in reponse to last week's discussion 14:48:22 ... I have fixed the table under the first piece of mustard as discussed 14:48:37 ... with dotted lines and getting rid of the repeated use of the word character 14:48:48 ... and then I redid the I love Swiss cows example 14:48:59 ... any high-level comments on this? 14:49:39 ... is that example effective? 14:49:51 ... or should I just rip it out? 14:49:55 r12a: seems okay to me 14:51:04 addison: so my proposal here would be please review this if you have time in detail 14:51:52 https://deploy-preview-154--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_truncation 14:52:35 https://deploy-preview-154--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#example-code-unit-trunc-bad 14:52:58 addison: I incorporated an image indivisible and memorable 14:53:11 ... I think I've mostly addressed the comments 14:53:22 r12a: looks all right now 14:54:45 addison: is this good enough that we could let other people to see it and we can always come back and do more work on it? 14:54:57 ... or if there are specific things to fix then I'm happy to fix them 14:55:40 addison: I think all of your comments were addressed 14:55:55 ... I left open ones where I did something different than your comment 14:55:59 https://deploy-preview-154--bp-i18n-specdev.netlify.app/#char_trunc_unit_rec 14:57:30 r12a: that sounds okay to me 14:58:08 xfq: looks good to me 14:58:39 r12a: we can merge it 14:58:40 +1 to merging 14:58:42 xfq: +1 15:01:36 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bray-unichars/ 15:12:42 rrsagent, make minutes 15:12:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-i18n-minutes.html xfq