Discuss i18n-glossary and Infra harmonization

[aphillips]

We recently had an issue with conflict between Encoding and I18N-glossary. There have been other discussions of glossary conflicts and the need to harmonize our definitions. There is a similar problem with TAG (linked below).

Our experience is that there are places in W3C where Infra is difficult to use or where the WGs are reluctant to use it (for reasons that seem valid to me). Let's discuss!

@annevk for visibility

w3c/i18n-glossary#66
w3c/i18n-glossary#28
w3ctag/design-principles#454

[tabatkins]

there are places in W3C where Infra is difficult to use or where the WGs are reluctant to use it

Could you elaborate on either of these? Infra is meant to give a standard set of low-level primitive spec objects and algorithms that ensure the web platform doesn't gratuitously differ in unimportant areas by accident. If an Infra type is difficult to use for some reason, that's likely fixable.

I'm less certain of why anyone would be "reluctant to use it", tho. It's already widely used across web platform specs, and not using it makes it more difficult to interoperate with web platform specs that do use it, at least in a well-defined manner. Elaboration on this point, especially, would be valuable.