Meeting minutes
Update translation in README
[xfq introduces the issue]
Eric: please use 与 instead of 和 for "&"
xfq: OK
Eric: otherwise LGTM
Restructure clreq per standardised headings
[xfq introduces the issue]
xfq: For the latest proposed changes see https://
huijing: I see the Forms & User Interaction section has been moved out from under Page & Book Layout
xfq: yes
xfq: see also w3c/
… There is currently no content in clreq for a number of the standard headings. Broadly, there are 3 options:
… Remove this section until we have some content to add to it.
… Write up some information for these sections.
… Leave this as a placeholder for future reference with the text TBD.
… Create issues about these sections to remind us to write related content in the future.
… A couple of the standard sections are removed already, since they don't apply to Chinese. These are Cursive Text, and Case & Other Character Transforms.
Eric: about Cursive Text and Case & Other Character Transforms, we can write something like "This feature is not needed in Chinese" instead of removing the sections
… This will allow non-native speakers to better understand Chinese.
huijing: Can this structure be adjusted?
xfq: We will not force clreq to modify the structure, but clreq might benefit from adopting this structure
xfq: the set of headings are standardised across most other lreq docs, as well as -gap documents, the Language Matrix, the Language Enablement Index, and the various GH issue labels in the many repos.
https://
https://
huijing: I agree with Eric, we should not delete the sections for features that are not available in Chinese
huijing: we can say "This feature is not needed in Chinese"
Zhengyu: If there is a feature unique to Chinese, does it mean that all other documents need to add this section?
xfq: Yes, but this is unlikely to happen.
Zhengyu: We can keep level 1 headings, like Text direction, Glyph shaping & positioning, etc.
Zhengyu: However, about level 2 headings, since each orthography is different, making level 2 headings the same may not be a good choice
xfq: we may need to raise the priority of this issue, otherwise we may need to maintain and synchronize two different documents (before we adopt this structure).
… We have now decided how to handle features that do not exist in Chinese, but what should we do about features that exist in Chinese but we did not write about?
… like Grapheme/word segmentation & selection, Data formats & numbers, Lists, counters, etc.
Zhengyu: For these, I prefer not to mention them in the document, because that will make the document feel like a draft.
… Unless we can automatically delete these sections when publishing clreq.
xfq: I'll discuss this with Richard.
… any comments on the new structure?
xfq: the punctuation section was split
xfq: see 5.1 to 5.4 in https://
Zhengyu: He reclassified Chinese punctuation.
Eric: Why did he break up the punctuation section?
… it looks weird.
Zhengyu: because he reclassified Chinese punctuation.
Zhengyu: Abbreviation, ellipsis & repetition is a separate category, for example.
Eric: but ellipsis is a kind of Indicator Punctuation Mark
https://
Zhengyu: His classification system is a classification system that has nothing to do with the Chinese national standard classification system.
… There is nothing wrong with this in itself
… but if we adopt this new classification system
… we need to look at our text to see if there is any content that conflicts with this classification.
… our current narrative is based on the Chinese national standard
… like Indicator Punctuation Marks (标号) and Pause or Stop Punctuation Marks (点号)
Yijun: It feels weird to take out ellipsis into a section 5.4.
Eric: yeah, it feels weird.
Yijun: section 5.4 is Abbreviation, ellipsis & repetition
Yijun: but Chinese doesn't seem to have abbreviation and repetition
… There could be a section on all punctuation, and we link to that from 5.4
Zhengyu: If we force the consistency of the structure, there will be redundancy and inappropriateness.
xfq: about abbreviation, U+0983 SIGN VISARGA is sometimes used to mark initial abbreviations in Bangla
xfq: U+0970 DEVANAGARI ABBREVIATION SIGN is used to indicate abbreviations of words in Hindi
xfq: Acronyms and abbreviations are indicated by U+05F4 PUNCTUATION GERSHAYIM in Hebrew
xfq: If you think it's not good to separate the ellipsis, we can discuss it with Richard.
Zhengyu: If we can change the level 2 headings, we can just not use this classification system at all.
Eric: agreed
… So we need to first confirm whether the level 2 headings can be changed
Zhengyu: and whether we want to change it
… If we want to be consistent with other documents, we will definitely face this problem
… From the perspective of describing Chinese layout requirements, this will make simple things complicated
Eric: I agree
xfq: Richard probably won't force it, but it would be best if we can be consistent
… If the structure has more disadvantages than advantages, we can leave it unchanged.
Zhengyu: There is also a problem with the second section (Text direction). I thought the two subsections would be vertical and horizontal writing modes.
xfq: We have good support for horizontal layout on the web, so there is not much to write, so there is only a vertical text section.
Zhengyu: in https://
Eric: There is only vertical text section but no horizontal text section. It feels a bit strange.
Zhengyu: It would not be harmonious to just copy our original text here, unless we rewrite our text.
Zhengyu: 2.1.1 Writing Modes in Chinese should not be under 2.1 Vertical text
… it should appear before 2.1 Vertical text
Eric: agreed
… we should have a section called "Text direction basics" as 2.1, and then 2.2 Vertical text, 2.3 Bidirectional text
xfq: Another possibility is to put it after 2 and before 2.1
Zhengyu: If the level 2 headings can be modified
… I think the current 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 can be directly laid out under 2, becoming 2.1 and 2.2, which will be more natural.
Eric: Yes, I think it is unrealistic not to change the level 2 headings.
… by the way, the Chinese national standard style guide does not allow text to be added directly after a section and before a subsection (e.g., after 2 and before 2.1)
xfq: I think some other style guides are just the opposite: each subsection must have introductory text before it.
Eric: Does W3C have any style guide in this regard?
xfq: not at the moment
… There are several options now:
… 1) keep level 2 headings
… 2) keep only level 1 headings
… 3) do not adopt the new structure
… some punctuation-related features was moved to 6.3.2 Punctuation Width Adjustment
Zhengyu: that's not a big problem
Eric: yeah, 6.3.2 is not a big problem
xfq: and Line Adjustment in under 6.2
xfq: it's 6.2.2.4 Line Adjustment
Zhengyu: Line Adjustment should not be put under Paragraph Adjustment Rules
Eric: This is a matter of detail, although it is indeed wrong
… Line Adjustment should be 6.2.3 instead of 6.2.2.4
… The more important question is whether to change the level 2 headings
… 5. Punctuation & inline features in alreq is almost empty
xfq: yeah, clreq contains more information about punctuation marks
… Many orthographies use ASCII punctuation directly
Eric: I don't understand why 5.1-5.4 are classified like this
xfq: This is what r12a has concluded over the years
Eric: OK
Zhengyu: Does this classification provide any guidance to browser vendors?
Eric: I don't think so, it's just for classification
… the Pause or Stop Punctuation Marks & Indicator Punctuation Marks classification is based on the Chinese national standard
… Another option is to follow his punctuation classification method, but also mention the national standard classification in the document.
… The current 5.1.2 Indicator Punctuation Marks section is a bit awkward and does not include information about quotation marks and ellipses
xfq: The same feature may appear in multiple sections, and this is also the case with other lreq documents.
… one section contains the main content about this feature, and other places link to this section
Zhengyu: I think it's inappropriate to put Pause or Stop Punctuation Marks and Indicator Punctuation Marks under 5.1 Phrase & section boundaries
Zhengyu: These two classification systems are mutually exclusive
xfq: another problem is 2.1.3 Composition of Chinese and Western Mixed Texts
… it should not appear under 2.1 Vertical text
Eiso: Don't other scripts have this problem? They should have it too.
Zhengyu: in Arabic it can be put under Bidirectional text
xfq: we can discuss this with Richard
Eric: The fundamental problem is that it is difficult to find places to put things with Chinese characteristics.
… What is the attitude of jlreq?
xfq: they will discuss this at JLReq TF's next meeting on 8/13
… they're considering whether the new jlreq-d document would also benefit from adopting this structure
Eiso: Is it possible to change the level 2 headings (for the Language Matrix, the Language Enablement Index etc.)?
xfq: It is possible. It has been changed before. But there must be sufficient reasons.
Eiso: we can also see what the jlreq folks think
Zhengyu: another issue
… 7. Base lines, line height, etc., 8. Lists, counters, etc., and 9. Styling initials should all be under 6. Line & paragraph layout
Eric: agreed
xfq: He probably didn't mean it, it's a mistake.
Eric: in addition, 7.1 Considerations when Designing the Type Area should be under 10. Page & book layout
… I understand why he put it in 7. Base lines, line height, etc., but 10. Page & book layout might be more appropriate
… section 7 only needs a few brief words to explain that Chinese do not have a baseline and how line height is calculated. That’s enough.
… type area & page design should be under 10.1 General page layout & progression
Eiso: If a certain script needs to add a level 2 heading, do other scripts also need to consider adding it?
xfq: yes
Eric: Let's discuss the general direction with r12a first.
xfq: OK
Eric: Once the general direction is determined, we can start modify the document
[css-counter-styles-3] Zhuyin (Mandarin Bopomofo) counter style
[xfq introduces the issue]
[Discuss the hiragana-iroha counter style]
[Discuss the cjk-heavenly-stem counter style]
Zhengyu: The more important question is whether this needs to be standardized.
… If standardization is needed, then we need an authoritative order that covers the complete Bopomofo transliteration system
Yijun: there's also the Taiwanese Phonetic Symbols (臺語方音符號) system
xfq: this issue is for Mandarin Bopomofo
Eiso: There is still relatively little material available, and we don’t know if this order is stable.
… Theoretically, it is also possible to use only the initial consonants without the finals.
xfq: we can let the author decide instead of defining it in the browser
Eric: Let him discuss it with the CSS Working Group for now.
National standards
[Discuss how to provide feedback to Chinese typography-related national standards]
Next teleconference time
September 4 (Wednesday), 19:00-20:00 (UTC+8)