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

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

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:28:31 -0800
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA017D9B8EBE@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Not having written it just yet... :-)

Assuming for a moment that CSS3 does not resolve the problem with Unicode normalization in selectors, users of selectors-api will be potentially surprised by the results in certain circumstances involving denormalized selectors. Implementers will also benefit by not getting stuck on test cases that involve normalization.

The text would probably be something like:

CSS3 Selectors do not provide for Unicode Normalization of either the selector expression or elements and text in the document tree being selected from. Queries and content must use a consistent character sequence in order for the selection to work properly. Some systems do not use the recommended Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC) for input or for data storage, and this is especially true for certain languages that customarily use Unicode combining characters. This may lead to selectors that are visually-and-semantically equivalent to parts of the tree not producing an expected match. For more information see:

  Unicode Annex #15 

Does that help?


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lachlan Hunt [mailto:lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:16 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [selectors-api] Selectors API I18N Review...
> Phillips, Addison wrote:
> > However, I18N feels that our two WGs can construct a useful,
> > informative, small, and relatively-painless bit of text to allow
> you
> > to proceed. Please let us know if you think this an appropriate
> way
> > to address this issue or if we can assist in any way to help you
> guys
> > out.
> I'm willing to consider any proposal that the i18n WG comes up with.
> But in the mean time, it would useful if you could clarify the
> issue for
> me by providing a rough indication of what kind of information you
> intend the not to convey, and the audience (i.e. authors,
> implementers,
> other?) that it intends to benefit.  This will then allow me to
> more
> easily evaluate and potentially tweak the proposal when it comes.
> --
> Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
> http://lachy.id.au/

> http://www.opera.com/

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 23:30:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:23:04 UTC