[wg/i18n-core] i18n WG rechartering 2025

[xfq]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

WG Charter

diff from charter template for the WG

Expected end of charter refinement phase: 2026-01-13

If applicable:

diff from previous WG charter

chair dashboard for the WG

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing

• Existing WG recharter

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach

• HTML
• Browser vendors

Known or potential areas of concern

Currently, no browser vendors are involved in the editing of the W3C HTML Ruby Markup Extensions spec.

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? this strategy funnel issue

Anything else we should think about as we review?

The HTML Ruby Markup Extensions spec will be transferred from the HTML working group, and several documents will change from a Note to a REC-track document, including:

• Strings on the Web: Language and Direction Metadata (per https://www.w3.org/2025/12/18-i18n-minutes.html#cf6f )
• Character Model for the World Wide Web: String Matching (per https://www.w3.org/2025/12/18-i18n-minutes.html#cf6f )
• Internationalization Glossary (per Can we make the glossary (or parts of it) normative i18n-glossary#78 )

In addition, the group will incubate the Message Resources proposal, and it may continue to be developed in the WG in the future.

[plehegar]

WD Request for HTML Ruby Markup Extensions - html-ruby-extensions

[plehegar]

I don't think we need to recharter the IG. There are only editorial changes to the charter and the current charter runs until 2027. No reason for the AC to review such charter.

[dontcallmedom]

• the WG charter lists the I18N glossary as a normative deliverable - is it really meant to become normative?
• the success criteria should include the bits associated with Rec-track specs
• there are a couple of sections that talks about the "past 3 years" but don't seem to have changed since the last charter - that seems suspicious :)
• the coordination with the WHATWG should explicitly list coordination on HTML Ruby extensions

There are also a number of alignments needed with the latest charter template (at least in sections 5-8).

[plehegar]

@xfq , please work with Comm to start the charter refinement for the i18n wg charter.

[plehegar]

• the WG charter lists the I18N glossary as a normative deliverable - is it really meant to become normative?

This one is a tricky one so I'll jump in since there was some back and forth.

The problem arises how you reference the document. If it's not normative, it cannot be used as a reference in normative definitions that have impact on implementations. At least, it fails the tests on the stability of references parts (Notes could be updated at any time) and nature of the dependency (impacts implementors of the specification).

[xfq]

I don't think we need to recharter the IG. There are only editorial changes to the charter and the current charter runs until 2027. No reason for the AC to review such charter.

Okay, we discussed this in yesterday's i18n WG teleconference. It's fine not to recharter the IG. When the IG charter expires, we can consider extending the term. Hopefully, we can recharter the IG together with the working group next time.

[xfq]

• there are a couple of sections that talks about the "past 3 years" but don't seem to have changed since the last charter - that seems suspicious :)

Indeed, since only one year has passed since the three-year period of the current charter. I can update this number.

[xfq]

There are also a number of alignments needed with the latest charter template (at least in sections 5-8).

Thanks. I made some updates.

[xfq]

@xfq , please work with Comm to start the charter refinement for the i18n wg charter.

Will do.