See also: IRC log
approved
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to ask for an extension for CSS 2.1 review (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to gather pointers for Michael about W3C in general ... (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to Bjoern saying Martins mail is a WG answer (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action03]
francois: got a reply from Bjoern, might want to discuss it later
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to the WG finally (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to write a mail about possibility for SVG tiny specific IRI tests to martin and the i18n core list (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to have a look at issue 3698 and gather information on options for diacrictics in collations (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action06]
francois: so far, found oracle
collation which has some parameterization
... for those collations, diacritics are not independent of
case
<scribe> ACTION: All to read Martins comments on IDNA issues (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to see what has to be updated on tutorial material for IDNA issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action08]
note of martin http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Oct/0013.html
felix: let's drop AI 7, I do AI 8
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to to classify open LTLI issues (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to build a current issues list on charmod norm (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to give input to wiki for the LTLI summary (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action11]
francois: update from Mark, Felix updated LTLI draft later
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to review InkML LC draft (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action12]
felix: LC is until 18 December
richard: we talk on tuesday, and see if we need an extension
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to find out what is the canonical URI for BCP47 (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action13]
richard: got various URIs from the IETF, Philippe Le Hegaret (IETF Liaison from W3C) is working on it
francois: concluded during AI review
felix describes the mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2006Dec/0011.html
francois: testing resolving is
good
... but just to have a test to verify that IRI does not blow up
everything would be good
... validating a document that contains an instance of
anyURI
... is necessary as well
... i.e. positive tests
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to go back to schema people with our test ideas for XML schema anyURI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action14]
felix: postpone to next week, let's look at it next week
richard: BP statements should be first, explanations later
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0026.html
- What topic is *not* covered by the document yet? By "covered" I don't
mean that the text about the topic is completely finished, but that the
topic has a - more or less filled - place in the document.
- Do you agree with the general structure of the document?
- I have integrated best practices statements in each subsection of sec. 3
(except sec. 3.6, not done yet), and in sec. 4. Do you agree with this
approach? Should we get rid of the normative statements in sec. 6, or sec.
6 as a whole?
richard: feels strange to have
both BP and conformance statements
... with only BP, we don't have power to enforce s.t.
francois: TAG document has a lot of wheight, with only BP
richard: we need to think if we
want to demote sec. 6 by calling the other stuff BP
... not sure if that is good
... if everything is BP, but sec. 6 is important for people to
do
... that is difficult
francois: difficult to have both
normative and BP statements
... the web arch has BP statements, but also refers to RFC
2119
... so they make the BP statements normative
richard: no, I consider BP
statements like in Geo. Here, "should" clarifiers the language
only
... the conformance section should say "if you develop specs at
W3C, you need to take the following into account: ..."
francois: the web arch does not
have that, I think
... for LTLI we want to have some normative statements to use
within w3c
... for LTLI, we also say s.t. how to identify locales
"* Core of a locale: language (mostly). No need (or ability) for LTLI to define the rest."
from http://esw.w3.org/topic/i18nLTLI
francois: we can say normatively
"use a language identifier (BCP 47) as the core of the
locale"
... editorial thing: difference between CLDR and LDML
... there is also an ISO thing about locale
<scribe> ACTION: francois to look after ISO locale related spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action15]
general agreement that normative statement about language identifier (BCP 47) as the core of the locale would be valuable in LTLI
richard: need to change "RFC 4646" to "... or its successor"
<scribe> ACTION: felix to update LTLI with "or its successor " statements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action16]
<scribe> ACTION: all to give feedback on LTLI update [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-i18ncore-minutes.html#action17]
<r12a> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0024.html
richard: a number of comments and my take on whose
R 103-7
R 103-20
richard: we should try to get
them to reference to BCP 47
... we hope to provide the right URI within a week or so
francois: so "at least update rfc 4646, and please BCP 47"
R103-21
richard: should remove dc:language example, it's confusing
francois: yes
R103-30
(later)
R103-45
francois: fine
R103-36
<lexeme role="mypos:noun">
<r12a> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0024.html
francois: shorthand for the
concatenation of namespace URI and verb
... do they define it?
richard: don't think so. Also: is it normal to have this as an attribute value?
francois: yes, you could say: it
is an XPath with one component
... there is a new spec which has a name for this
... they should prefer to s.t. to justify the usage
richard: it is a little confusing
francois: it is called CURIEs
richard: will go back to them asking to explain how their mechanism works, or use a simpler examply
R103-26
(fine)
R103-33
richard: don't see the expansion, otherwise I'm fine
R103-30
richard: they are not having
markup for bidi
... they say "people can use the unicode control
characters"
Scribe dropped temporarily. Summary of discussion: WG decided to go back to PLS folks and say: We are not happy with your resolution here, but we will not insist on the comment. Richard will also explain why using markup is better than control characters (e.g. visibility of bidi information via markup, explicit structure via XML elements with @dir attribute, ...).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006OctDec/0025.html
Felix agreed also to drop the proposal in the mail 0025 above.
ADJOURNED