- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:26:23 -0800 (PST)
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Koji Ishii wrote: > I understand this is probably technically difficult, and I also > understand that current IVS spec allows not doing this as John > Hudson pointed out. But I wish you aware of that people's > expectation is different. The question is not difficulty, I don't think it's the right behavior to require font fallback for UVS selectors. It doesn't make sense to me the way the Unicode spec is written, it doesn't make sense from given the way other font variant features work and it doesn't make sense to me from a performance perspective. If you think there's an actual use case that warrants fallback to find a font that supports a particular UVS, please describe it in detail. Regards, John Daggett
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 08:29:05 UTC