– DRAFT –
Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

<jsahleen> Thanks

Agenda Review

Action Items

<addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues

<jsahleen> #201

<gb> Action 201 make list of currently-non-REC deliverables for consideration of REC-track (on xfq) due 2025-12-18

<xfq> w3c/i18n-actions#201 (comment)

<gb> Action 201 make list of currently-non-REC deliverables for consideration of REC-track (on xfq) due 2025-12-18

xfq: There were several reactions. Make it an agenda item soon?
… We have entered charter refinement phase.

addison: Next call is only in three weeks.
… How much time to review?

xfq: One month from Dec 13, but also depends on horizontl reviews we get

<addison> close #200

xfq: We can close #200

<gb> Action 200 produce a new charter draft (on xfq) due 2025-12-11

<gb> Closed issue #200

jsahleen: OK, closed

<addison> reopen #197

<gb> Reopened issue #197 rename the repo and shortname and publish ruby accessibility document as a first draft note

jsahleen: Do we need to discuss #196?

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

addison: Waiting for response from MArtin first

addison: Next few actions belong together.

eemeli: Didn't get a chance to discuss the actions.
… But would like to get a W3C review or comment on an item.

addison: Can label an issue.
… But no automated link to their repo.

eemeli: I will be traveling, but will try to advance, maybe not before Feb. Or discuss a bit today.

<jsahleen> w3c/i18n-actions#187

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

addison: Working on #187

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

addison: We should probably have a call with Bob and Mark
… Will email, but no discussion before the holidays.

addison: remaining actions ongoing.

Info Share

Info Share

Review RADAR Review

<xfq> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/91/views/1

jsahleen: Nothing new came in.

<jsahleen> #283

<gb> Issue 283 not found

<addison> i18n-request#283

<gb> Issue 283 SHACL 1.2 Core 2025-11-03 > 2025-01-15 (by nicholascar) [REVIEW REQUESTED] [SR] [LC]

<addison> i18n-request#288

jsahleen: I'm 3/4 through this.

<gb> Issue 288 SHACL 1.2 SPARQL 2025-12-01 > 2025-01-22 (by nicholascar) [REVIEW REQUESTED] [LC]

jsahleen: Ditto for SHACL.

<addison> i18n-request#284

<gb> Issue 284 rdf12-concepts 2025-11-21 > 2026-01-22 (by ktk) [REVIEW REQUESTED] [LC]

jsahleen: Fuqiao finished 284.

addison: That's in the agenda.

xfq: Not done Semantics yet.

Bert: Not done N-Triples yet

addison: Unicode Charcter Repertoire Subsets can be moved to completed.

Pending Issue Review

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

<jsahleen> i18n-activity/#2060

<jsahleen> i18n-activity#2060

<gb> Issue 2060 Relationship with /TR/ruby (by w3cbot) [pending] [tracker] [s:html-ruby-extensions]

jsahleen: Do we need to do anything?

xfq: Record a group consensus?

addison: We will control the document, so we should also agree on the shortname.

xfq: It has a short name html-ruby, since it was published by HTML. We don't need to chnage it.

<jsahleen> i18n-activity#2059

<gb> Issue 2059 Clarification on inline direction (by xfq) [pending] [s:rdf-concepts]

<addison> proposed: the html-ruby-extensions specification should be maintained separately from and not overwrite the TR/ruby spec

<r12a> +1

<addison> +1

<jsahleen> +1

<atsushi> +1

<Bert> +1

<xfq> +1

<addison> eemeli: 0

RESOLUTION: the html-ruby specification should be maintained separately from and not overwrite the TR/ruby spec

<jsahleen> w3c/i18n-activity#2059

<gb> Issue 2059 Clarification on inline direction (by xfq) [pending] [s:rdf-concepts]

<xfq> w3c/i18n-activity#2059

<xfq> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/

<xfq> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#dfn-dir-lang-string

<xfq> rdf:dirLangString

xfq: I reviewed RDF 1.2 Concepts. They introduced directional language tagged strings
… I didn't find how diretcion changes inside strings should work.

addison: As it is just a string, presumably with Unicode.

<addison> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-Datatypes

jsahleen: You, xfq, mean the spec should mention that?

<addison> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal

eemeli: Is this like string-meta?

addison: It's their response to string-meta, which says you should be able to set the base direction.

r12a: string-meta is mostly about direction of a string as a whole, not about inline.

addison: I take it this RDF is about the wrapper, indeed.

eemeli: One option is to get Unicode to introduce a new directionality control to be used as the first charcter of a string to set the base direction.
… I don't remember what string-meta says.

r12a: That option was not preferred. String-meta recommends meta-data outside the string.
… Fuqiao's comment on the RDF spec is about direction switching inside the string.

eemeli: A first character of a string to define direction indeed puts the data inside the string, but seems a valid way. A character that explicitly applies to the whole string, not to the next character.

r12a: If you use ‘first-strong’ heuristics, you effective get this behavior.

jsahleen: What would you do if you have metadata and an initial direction character that conflicts.

eemeli: Essentially as defined in HTML.

addison: So back to Fuqiao's comment: Do we want RDF to include a comment about internal directionality inside strings? A note, pointing to one of our articles?

eemeli: Is there such a not ei string-meta?

<addison> https://www.w3.org/TR/string-meta/#terminology

eemeli: In that case it seems good to have it here, too.

addison: RDF is just defining a data type with initial direction.

<addison> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-text-direction

r12a: Could say that it either needs markup or Unicode direction chars.

<addison> https://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/uba-basics

addison: They should add a note to the text direction section pointing to the article ^^

r12a: Maybe we can suggest text for them.

<addison> If you are unfamiliar with bidirectional or right-to-left text, there is a basic introduction here. This will give you a basic grasp of how the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm works and the interplay between it and the block direction, which will stand you in good stead for reading this document.

addison: Based on the text from the article.

r12a: [Sharing screen]
… In 1.2 Terminology copy the para towards the end. And with added text about using either markup or Unicode layer characters,

addison: I would want to link to uba-basics

<xfq> https://www.w3.org/International/articlelist#direction

xfq: I can propose some text.
… I was thinking of linking both to uba-basics and the article about markup vs unicode controls

xfq: and I will file the issue on RDF.

Discussion about whether we need to make an Action or if xfq will do it anyway.

search engine crawling and indexing

consider non-REC deliverables for the charter

<addison> #201

<gb> Action 201 make list of currently-non-REC deliverables for consideration of REC-track (on xfq) due 2025-12-18

<xfq> w3c/i18n-actions#201 (comment)

<gb> Action 201 make list of currently-non-REC deliverables for consideration of REC-track (on xfq) due 2025-12-18

addison: xfq made a list of notes we published until today. They contain MUST and SHOULD language, although they are not normative, as Florian remarked.

r12a: We intend to keep changing many of them, hence Notes.

xfq: Question is if we can write tests for it.

r12a: If we want to change the status, we probably need to discuss that with the other authors, e.g., Best Practices for XML Internationalization

r12a: I think this doc is aimed at authors.
… On the other hand, WCAG is an example of a doc aimed at authors and it is Rec track…
… Do we have the resources to update this document? We already have a lot to do. Maybe for next charter?

r12a: Might be useful to make string-meta a Rec.

xfq: How do we test it?
… Test other specifcations?

jsahleen: If any of the docs on the list do *not* move to Rec track, do we need to remove MUST and SHOULD?

addison: No, no need.

r12a: string matching (charmod-norm) is a good candicate for Rec track.

addison: ltli, I would like it to be normative.
… But I think nobody worked on it since Felix and me most recently.

xfq: We need to decide which are normative deliverables, also for patent reasons.

addison: specdev is not in the list.

r12a: That one is not Rec track.

jsahleen: So we are considering charmod-norm, string-meta and ltli for Rec track. What about string-search?

jsahleen: What about testing?

r12a: We mostly develop advice, not tech, so mostly not Rec track.

<xfq> string-meta and charmod-norm

addison: Charmod fundamentals we split up according to specification or implementation

<addison> proposed: add string-meta and charmod-norm to the REC-track for the new charter of I18N

<r12a> +1

<jsahleen> +1

<addison> +1

<xfq> +1

<Bert> +1

RESOLUTION: add string-meta and charmod-norm to the REC-track for the new charter of I18N

RESOLUTION: add string-meta and charmod-norm to the REC-track for the new charter of I18N

jsahleen: Import text UTF-8 parsing will be for January 8

search engine crawling and indexing

search engine crawling and indexing

xfq: This is about changing the article.

<xfq> w3c/i18n-drafts#795

<gb> Pull Request 795 Add information about search engine crawling and indexing (by xfq)

xfq: Accept-Language headers and such.
… I saw addison's comment already.

AOB?

<addison> exuent omnes

<jsahleen> No Latin allowed