Status of Web App Translations?

[xfq]

What is the current status of Web App Translations? Whether it is active or not, I think it is best to have a link to it in README.md.

[loubrett]

Progress on translations has been temporarily paused while we work on some higher priority things that have come up. I'll add a link to the readme and a note to the explainer saying it needs updating (as it has got a bit out of date).

[xfq]

Thank you for adding the link, Louise!

(MiniApps WG hat on) We plan to move MiniApp Manifest to CR and we are currently blocked by w3c/miniapp-manifest#4 . We would like to avoid any incompatibilities with Web App Manifest if possible. Any timeline for solving the i18n issues of the Web App Manifest spec?

---

(i18n WG hat on) We raised a few issues that we would like you to address and we'd be happy to organise a call to help you resolve our raised issues. We can discuss them during the Web Manifest coordination call, i18n WG call, or we can set one up separately if you prefer.

Thank you!

[loubrett]

I've replied to the issues you raised - I believe all of these are already addressed with the latest proposal (w3c/manifest#1045).

Adding @marcoscaceres and @aarongustafson who have done a lot of work on translations and may be able to help with a timeline.

[aphillips]

I think we need coordination here. I can't tell from w3c/manifest#1045 what the proposal currently is. Looking at w3c.github.io/manifest today I also see many things that I would submit as either editorial or normative comments, but your WG has not requested review.

Would it be okay if:

• I18N did a review of the spec text you currently have
• We schedule some sort of conversation to discuss the current status: let us help you and help us understand your choices so far

I think this would help you make progress and avoid surprises later. It's not urgent, if you have other high-priority items, but I think it would be super helpful.

@xfq @r12a

[mgiuca]

Hi @xfq , @aphillips

Thanks for looking at this. I think it would be good for I18N WG to look over this and raise issues now, so we don't have a surprise later when it's formally requested. I'm not sure if we're ready for a formal review yet and I'll let @marcoscaceres weigh in on that.

It would be good to discuss the manifest translations work and we can give a summary of where we're at and collect any issues you have with the proposed approach.

[aphillips]

@mgiuca Thanks!

The only thing formal about an "early" I18N review is that we track it in our RADAR page and assign a shepherd to work with you on the issues that we raise. Based on the above, I'm going to file a review request on your group's behalf. You might still need to file a "formal" request for review when you get close to CR, but hopefully then the key I18N issues are already handled!

Separately let's discuss the state of manifest translations. What's the best way to set that up? Joint teleconference? Or just an email or GH issues discussion?

[mgiuca]

I think it would be best to start by filing issues (or replying on w3c/manifest#676, which I see you already did last July) just so we have an offline inventory of things you would like to see in a potential translations solution.

Having a face-to-face is hard because a lot of us are in Australia, but if there are issues that are easier to discuss in a VC then we can set it up.