W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: [selectors-api] Selectors API I18N Review...

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:32:54 -0000
To: "'Phillips, Addison'" <addison@amazon.com>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Message-ID: <00c901c98240$00bbb830$02332890$@org>

Following on from our discussion at yesterday's telecon, I did some research into whether major browsers actually do normalise selector and class names for matching.  The answer is that they don't.  

Tests: http://www.w3.org/International/tests/css/tests-selectors/

Results: http://www.w3.org/International/tests/css/tests-selectors/results-normalization

(Thanks to Andrew for suggesting the use of Vietnamese.)

I suggest we follow up on Elika's helpful note and request that the CSS WG re-examine this for CSS 2.1 and the CSS3 modules.  I think it is quite an important lapse, and I'm not sure how we missed it for so long.  Certainly this can cause major headaches for people working in Vietnamese and the many other languages that use combining characters, in that the cause of the failure to match names is not at all obvious, and fixing it may not be simple, especially if different people are working on the CSS and the markup.

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: 29 January 2009 04:38
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [selectors-api] Selectors API I18N Review...
> 
> 
> Phillips, Addison wrote:
> > Dear Webapps WG,
> >
> > I am writing on behalf of the I18N Core WG who discussed the Selectors
> > API WD in our call of 3 December [1].
> >
> > We reviewed the Selectors API working draft. In reviewing this draft,
> > we did not find any internationalization issues in the text of the
> > document. However, we would like to point out that the CSS3 Selectors
> > themselves have outstanding internationalization comments not addressed
> > in the current version of that document [4] and which would (we think)
> > impact anyone who were to implement the Selectors API. Our comments on
> > CSS3 Selectors are located at [2]. We also note that Unicode Normalization
> > is not treated anywhere in this draft or in CSS3 Selectors.
> > ...
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/03-core-minutes.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-css3-selectors/
> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-
> core/2008Dec/0006.html
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/ aka
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215
> 
> I have reviewed all of your outstanding comments on Selectors, and with
> the exception of a request for a bidi example [1], all of them have been
> dealt with in the upcoming draft [2].
> 
> As far as I know (and perhaps my memory does not go back far enough, I
> have only been in the WG since 2004), the CSS Working Group has no record
> of the I18n Working Group raising an issue with regards to Unicode
> Normalization in any of our specs. If the I18nWG would like us to address
> this issue, please raise an issue against /our/ specs, preferably with a
> recommended solution. Such an issue would potentially affect the following
> specs at least:
>    [CSS21]          CSS2.1
>    [css3-namespace] CSS Namespaces
>    [css3-selectors] Selectors Level 3
>    [css3-content]   CSS Generated and Replaced Content Level 3
>    [css3-page]      CSS Paged Media Level 3
>    [css3-gcpm]      CSS Generated Content for Paged Media Level 3
> 
> I will note that a previous version of the Selectors module included a
> paragraph on Unicode normalization in the Conformance Requirements
> section:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/#Conformance
> which appears to have been removed in response to comments as described
> here:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2005OctDec/0158.html
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006JanMar/0049.html
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors3
> 
> ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 18:32:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 January 2009 18:32:56 GMT