Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text-decor] Characters to skip for emphasis marks (text-emphasis)

The Working Group just discussed `Characters to skip for emphasis marks (text-emphasis)`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Accept the proposed changes and follow up with unicode`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic:Characters to skip for emphasis marks (text-emphasis)<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/839<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We discussed and resolved to skip punct for em marks because that's default expected. There was discussion with i18n. I checked in edits to impl that decision<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We skip characters in punct from unicode with a handful of exceptions<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I asked florian to talk to typographers in Japanese community. florian recommended adding another character.<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/#text-emphasis-style-property<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Definition is straight forward. There's symbols in unicode punct so we're effectively re-categorizing. Things like @ aren't really punct<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Definition at end of ^<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's where we're at<br>
&lt;tantek> q+<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: If we're going to diverge from unicode can we at least file a bug against unicode to say we think you made a mistake and we're patching it in CSS. to give them strong feedback. Elsewise seems bad to diverge<br>
&lt;dael> chris: Agree<br>
&lt;liam> +1<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying push to disagreement upstream.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Happy to explain, but because I think unicode general category is required to be stable I don't think unicode will be able to fix.<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: Let's not assume failure. Let's try.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Okay. It's a valid point. Let's give them the feedback. Thanks tantek<br>
&lt;dbaron> Unicode has split categories in the past<br>
&lt;liam> [the feedback may help Unicode in future too]<br>
&lt;Rossen> ack tantek<br>
&lt;Rossen> ack florian<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'm in favor of this. As fantasai mentioned I reviewed. I reviewed and discussed details with Japanese people and according to them it's very subjective. The conclusions fantasai came to are in line witht he rational they gave.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Great. Any other opinions?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections to accepting?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Accept the proposed changes and follow up with unicode<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/839#issuecomment-391409880 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2018 16:22:59 UTC