– DRAFT –
Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

Agenda Review

<jsahleen> Zakim take up item1

Agenda Review

Action Items

<jsahleen> #199

<gb> Action 199 contact florian about ruby extension spec status and invite to next telecon (on aphillips) due 2025-11-27

https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues

<jsahleen> #198

<gb> Action 198 Remind everyone to read https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-wsg/issues/170 (on aphillips, jsahleen, xfq, r12a, bert-github) due 2025-11-27

<addison> close #1999

<gb> Issue #1999 not found

<addison> close #199

<gb> Closed issue #199

<jsahleen> #197

<gb> Action 197 rename the repo and shortname and publish ruby accessibility document as a first draft note (on xfq, himorin) due 2025-11-18

<jsahleen> #196

<gb> Action 196 remind @duerst to create a list of gaps in URL standard (on aphillips, duerst) due 2025-11-17

<addison> close #198

<gb> Closed issue #198

<jsahleen> #189

<gb> Action 189 follow up with shane carr about ecma repo automation (on aphillips) due 2025-10-23

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2025Aug/0000.html

eemeli ^

<jsahleen> #187

<gb> Action 187 ping GOOG again for participation (on aphillips) due 2025-10-16

<jsahleen> #185

<gb> Action 185 follow up with PLH on automating TC39 repos (on aphillips) due 2025-10-02

<jsahleen> #136

<gb> Issue 136 follow up on XML errata (by aphillips) [task]

<jsahleen> #135

<gb> Action 135 follow up on XR issue 1393 about locale in session (on aphillips) due 2024-10-17

<jsahleen> #33

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

<jsahleen> #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

related to XML errata: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-i18n-minutes.html#9bc9

<jsahleen> #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

eemeli: we now have the explainer for the message resources in the i18n-discuss repo
… should we have this tracked somehow?

addison: we need to figure out what we're going to produce
… explainer, formal spec, note?

eemeli: I'm really looking forward to getting out of this is a spec
… we've signed up to incubate that work at least

florian: I guess the idea with incubation is you gather all sorts of people and you make them read it
… and you make them react
… if their reactions are suggestions then maybe you do those
… until you have a crowd of people for it to be an actual spec

eemeli: specific question i want to figure out is do we need to have this tracked other than just by having it in the i18n-discuss repo as a file?

<eemeli> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/blob/gh-pages/explainers/message-resources.md

https://www.w3.org/2025/11/TPAC/ac-session/xfq-i18n#intro

<addison> xfq: want to share this link

<addison> ... gave a presentation to AC meeting

Review RADAR Review

<jsahleen> #284

<gb> Issue 284 not found

https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91

jsahleen: i'll take #283 and #288

<gb> Issue 283 not found

<gb> Issue 288 not found

<Zakim> Bert, you wanted to say I can take one

xfq: i'll take rdf concepts

Bert: i'll take rdf n triples

jsahleen: rdf semantics?

xfq: i'll take that too

Pending Issue Review

<jsahleen> #2055

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

<gb> Issue 2055 not found

<addison> i18n-activity#2055

<gb> Issue 2055 Alternative to the explicit base direction setting? (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:epub] [wg:pm]

<jsahleen> i18n-activity#2054

<gb> Issue 2054 UX Review: 2.18 Web typography must be highly optimized and appropriate (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:web-sustainability-guidelines] [ig:sustainableweb]

<jsahleen> i18n-activity#2050

<gb> Issue 2050 The `auto` value of `ruby-type` (by w3cbot) [pending] [close?] [tracker] [s:html-ruby-extensions] [wg:htmlwg]

https://github.com/w3c/html-ruby/blob/main/explainers/ruby-tts.md#the-ruby-type-attribute

[xfq introduces the issue]

florian: I made the fix
… we'll revisit the whole document

<jsahleen> i18n-activity#2047

<gb> Issue 2047 Native Footnote/Endnote Element in HTML (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:html] [whatwg]

HTML Ruby Markup Extension Spec

florian: a bit of background
… the HTML spec is maintained at WHATWG
… has had a definition of ruby
… which i18n WG has repeatedly found issue with and wanted to expand upon
… a few years ago, I tried to move this forward
… tried to convince WHATWG to let us work on it
… they don't want to do anything in the HTML spec unless there are two browsers doing it
… the HTML WG of the W3C ran out of charter

florian: speaking with plh at TPAC
… we figured that the best thing to do probably is to move this spec to i18n WG
… that raises a question of charter
… the current charter is especially designed to not progress anything on the REC track
… however it does include the predecessor to this document as a REC-track document
… in terms of patent scope, we're covered
… by the charter
… plh's suggestion is that this group if we agree passes a resolution that we would like to publish a WD
… my request to i18n WG is can we resolve to make a transition request to publish this as a WD of this group?

<Zakim> eemeli, you wanted to ask about an import-text review

<r12a> "The Working Group will not produce Rec-track specifications, but will maintain the following W3C Recommendations, should any changes be necessary:"

r12a: we do have Ruby Annotation, charmod, and ITS v1 and v2 REC track documents in the charter
… but the charter says "The Working Group will not produce Rec-track specifications, but will maintain the following W3C Recommendations, should any changes be necessary:"
… I don't believe that we're chartered to start work on something that's going to end up being a REC at the moment
… I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that
… I think in the long run we should amend the charter anyway
… I'd rather not be blocked

r12a: perhaps we should start the recharter process now

r12a: publish it as a note and then convert it later to REC-track?

florian: no that's not allowed
… that breaks the patent policy
… if it's on the REC track, it should stay on the REC track

addison: I think we should try it
… it should be loudly announced
… so there's no mystery what we're doing
… we have a timing problem
… going through the chartering thing takes time

florian: a different way of phrasing this is we could resolve that this WG intends to publish it as a WD when possible
… and then we file the issue to figure out whether we already can, or whether we need a recharter
… we should work on the recharter regardless

r12a: I would certainly like to see it published asap

addison: we should take a resolution to recharter
… with the ability to publish REC-track documents

<florian> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The i18n WG would like to publish https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/ as a Working Draft as soon as possible, and will file a transition request to inquire whether that can be done prior to rechartering

<addison> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The I18N WG would like to recharter to produce REC track documents. Included in this is the adoption of the HTML Ruby spec (html-ruby), for which we will file a transition request to confirm that we can publish as WD prior to the new charter being in force.

addison: do we want to attempt to adopt work on the html ruby spec and try to publish a WD?

<r12a> +1

<florian> +1

<addison> +1

<xfq> +1

<jsahleen> +1

<Bert> +1

<David> +1

<atsushi> +1

<eemeli> +1

RESOLUTION: the I18N WG will attempt to adopt work on the html-ruby spec and try to publish a WD

<addison> do we wish to recharter the I18N WG, including permission to produce REC track documents including the html-ruby spec and potentially the glossary?

eemeli: can we make it possible to include message resources without requriring a further rechartering?

<addison> do we wish to recharter the I18N WG, including permission to produce REC track documents including the html-ruby spec and potentially other documents?

<florian> +13

<r12a> +1

<eemeli> +1

<addison> +1

<JcK> +1

<jsahleen> +1

<xfq> +1

<David> +1

as an example, https://www.w3.org/2025/11/proposed-socialwg-charter.html#deliverables has "Tentative Deliverables"

RESOLUTION: the I18N WG will seek to recharter, including permissio to produce REC track documents including html-ruby and potentially other documents

<atsushi> +1

ACTION: xfq: produce a new charter draft

<gb> Created action #200

HTML Ruby Extensions tracker issues

florian: i can be very brief

HTML Ruby Extensions tracker issues

<addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3As%3Ahtml-ruby-extensions%20label%3Aneeds-resolution

florian: all the issues that were raised by the i18n WG were addressed
… that's why i closed them