W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: [css3-writing-modes] Re-Summary of Tr in UTR#50 and text-orientation discussions

From: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:31:58 +0000
To: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE86CBCC.447F2%koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
Thanks, I don't think I tried to say that.

> At best, UTR 50 says "if you want to implement fallback, then you might
> want to fallback to r (or u)". The "if" is entirely in the hands of CSS.

This matches to my understanding. Probably my words did not match to what
I wanted to say, sorry about that. I guess "conformant" and "compliant"
are too strong word, and after I found so by some replies, I changed the
wording to say "what UTR says". Hope this works better.

Sorry for a wrong word usage, and thanks anyway.



On 10/18/13 7:38 AM, "Eric Muller" <emuller@adobe.com> wrote:

You seem to believe that the r/u part of UTR#50 values forces or at
least encourages fallback to be implemented. For example:

- in your message to this list on 9/28, 4:29AM (the first that day)
(paraphrased to make sense): "John says that CSS should prohibit the
implementation of fallback, I disagree because we should allow any
Unicode-compliant impl as CSS-compliant"

- in your message to this list on 10/15, 5:23AM, you say (again
paraphrased) "UTR50 says fallback should be attempted"

Because the property is informative:

- prohibiting fallback (or any other choice, for that matter) does not
make the implementation non-Unicode-compliant

- UTR50 does not recommend fallback.

At best, UTR 50 says "if you want to implement fallback, then you might
want to fallback to r (or u)". The "if" is entirely in the hands of CSS.

Eric.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 02:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:10:24 UTC