– DRAFT –
Internationalization Working Group Teleconference

Agenda Review

Action Items

<addison> #106

<gb> Action 106 write to ietf group about rfc9457 (on aphillips) due 2024-06-20

<addison> #93

<gb> Action 93 create best practices for consumers in string-meta (on aphillips) due 2024-04-25

<addison> #90

<gb> Action 90 steal some of henri's text from scroll-to-text-fragment for string-search (on aphillips) due 2024-04-18

addison: #106, I realized that for whatever reason I wasn't subscribed to any list with my current email address

<addison> #89

<gb> Action 89 update i18n specs to support dark mode (on xfq) due 2024-04-18

addison: I have the email about halfway composed

<addison> #79

<gb> Action 79 schedule a follow-up call with WHATNOT in ~April (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

addison: I hope to finish that today

<addison> #78

<gb> Action 78 compare infra to i18n-glossary export list and report back (on aphillips) due 2024-03-07

<addison> #33

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

addison: #78, keep that around until we have a chance to discuss things with that with WHATNOT

<addison> #8

<gb> Action 8 Follow up on the status of Canvas and formatted text (on aphillips) due 18 Jul 2023

addison: #33, I closed a couple this week

<addison> #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

<addison> #4

<gb> Action 4 Work with respec and bikeshed to provide the character markup template as easy-to-use markup (on aphillips, r12a) due 27 Jul 2023

Info Share

addison: Unicode Technology Workshop 2
… I was thinking of submitting a session or talk from a W3C topic
… like string-meta
… anybody have any info to share?
… one of the things that happened when I resubscribe myself to various IETF lists was I showed up to the 1st piece of action item on the BCP 47 dev list
… in like a year
… some people are trying to work on a new extension for BCP 47 based on some ISO standard
… the ISO standard has something to do with language varieties
… I don't know what those language varieties mean

JcK: I looked at it very briefly

RADAR Review

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

addison: we have a new incoming request
… Guidance on Applying WCAG 2 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT)
… does anybody want to shepherd this?

https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120727/

xfq: this is not a completely new doc
… I found a 2012 version of it

Pending Issue Review

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

xfq: I'll review wcag2ict-22

<addison> w3c/i18n-activity#1880

<gb> Issue 1880 Internationalization Checklist (by w3cbot) [tracker] [wg:das] [s:vibration]

Latest developments in the lreq area

<r12a> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/wiki/LReq-documents

r12a: this page lists all of the docs that I've been working on over the past 2 weeks
… and it shows the status
… we were due to publish a few docs on Tuesday, but I pulled plug on that
… because as I finally got to the Arabic stuff I realized that we had a situation
… since we're now doing things by script rather than by language
… there was a mismatch between the existing layout requirements doc and the lreq doc which ha s links in it
… the Latin stuff we'd been talking about, taking the text from the dpub people
… we now have a much cleaner model
… it's much easier to maintain this model
… and it's quite a useful model as well
… we now have a gap analysis document
… which is the same as the gap analysis document as before
… and we have the script resources document
… and that is just a list of links basically
… in some cases we have one or more other documents
… which are the old layout requirements
… and perhaps who knows in the future, some new layout requirements as well

addison: do we want to have a different name for the linky documents?
… we have a history of calling layout requirements the ones with the prose in them

r12a: the linky stuff, which I'm calling Arabic Script Resources, or Latin Script Resources

addison: short names are somewhat forever
… are you happy calling script resources lreq?

r12a: yeah, I think that's fine
… because these are layout requirements resources

addison: we have a resolution to publish some of these script resources documents
… is your proposal to add some others to that list?

r12a: the next step is to publish some FP Draft Notes this week
… which is my proposal for the set that we should publish next Tuesday

<r12a> arab-lreq, hani-lreq, latn-lreq, latn-gap, beng-lreq, deva-lreq

r12a: I'll put the list ^

addison: I think we mostly approved them, but some of them look new
… Bengali

r12a: Chinese is new

r12a: about Tamil and Tibetan
… they have basically nothing in the document
… I'd like to keep the URLs alive

<addison> xfq: since richard mentioned chinese in the set of documents

w3c/clreq#619 (comment)

<gb> Issue 619 Feedback on Chinese Layout Requirements Links (Draft) (by eisoch)

<addison> ... want to mention we have an open issue ^

<addison> ... about the chinese document that you might want to review before publication

<addison> richard: can you summarize?

<addison> xfq: it's about number of characters

<addison> ... people think that it's weird to refer to the CLDR list

<addison> ... don't know where that is from, CN, TW, HK, etc. have regulations about what is considered "roughly common" chinese characters

<addison> ... better to link to these resources

<addison> ... another comment is about combining marks

<addison> ... doc mentions no chinese marks

<addison> ... but some people mention there are some about tones

<addison> ... could say "chinese has no commonly used" or not in daily use or something

<addison> richard: there is a section at the top that gives the "flavor" of the section

<addison> xfq: good if there are no factual inaccuracies

<addison> richard: can make some changes

<addison> ... about combining marks, so the tone marks are used with the Han characters?? or used with pinyin?

<addison> xfq: used with ideographs

<addison> ... will find examples

<addison> proposed: publish arab-lreq, hani-lreq, latn-lreq, latn-gap, beng-lreq, deva-lreq as FPWD

<xfq> +1

<addison> +1

<r12a> +1

<JcK> +1

<Bert> +1

<atsushi> +1

RESOLUTION: publish arab-lreq, hani-lreq, latn-lreq, latn-gap, beng-lreq, deva-lreq as FPWD

<r12a> catalan, dutch, french, german, hungarian

<r12a> uighur gap

<r12a> uighur lreq

<r12a> urdu gap

<r12a> urdu lreq

<r12a> kashmiri gap

r12a: these are all gap analysis documents

<r12a> kashmiri lreq

addison: is that a thing we need to vote on?
… because we'd be changing the status

r12a: I don't know whether we need to vote either, but I thought at least I should mention it

addison: does anyone object to us converting all of these to historic?

RESOLUTION: convert any of catalan, dutch, french, german, hungarian, uighur gap/lreq, urdu gap/lreq, kashmiri gap/lreq to historic

r12a: I've been through every one of these documents this week and rewritten the introduction
… and the abstract
… and the sotd
… to make it clearer

PR Review

r12a: we're getting some new things coming through as well
… so there'll be a set of documents
… Cyrillic, Myanmar, Sundanese etc.

<addison> https://github.com/aphillips/i18n-drafts/blob/gh-pages/articles/language-negotiation/language-negotiation.md

addison: PRs in progress

addison: will fix the list structure if/when we convert this to HTML
… there was a question because I used the terms language and locale negotiation
… so I've added defs to clarify
… they are the same thing really
… I continue to welcome comments on this

<addison> https://deploy-preview-591--i18n-drafts.netlify.app/questions/qa-direction-native.html

addison: it's getting closer to being ready
… the second one is "How can I use direction metadata in native APIs?"
… I have incorporated the comments

r12a: it's a bit strange that the "Leave a comment" comment in "FURTHER READING" doesn't actually appear to do anything
… you could just duplicate the stuff that's behind the real "Leave a comment"

ACTION: xfq: publish qa-direction-native to website after addison finishes the tweak

<gb> Created action #111

<addison> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/aphillips/string-meta/pull/87.html#bp-consumers

addison: the red box in there would be replaced with a link to the thing I just gave an action to xfq to publish
… is there anything left to do before I merge it?

r12a: you didn't use bdi
… you just use an ordinary span element
… I was wondering why

addison: it's to show that any element could do this
… if you want me to highlight bdi, I could do that

r12a: we're sort of getting into tutorial, don't we?
… my recommendation would be to use bdi

addison: should I take the span off and just make it look like You are currently reading {$title}
… and then show it with bdi after the insert
… I'll make changes
… is this example getting so long that it should just be text?
… is the yellow box doing any good?
… r12a, you have a preference that we don't have a section with a bunch of prose @@
… I'll do another round

AOB?