W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: NFC in HTML5 (was: RE: Slots for Cyrillic Accented Vowels)

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 23:08:46 +0900
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110529140845.GC85275@sideshowbarker>
Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, 2011-05-28 09:01 -0400:

> I'm still new to NFC/NFD things so I may be short to think about its side
> effects, I'm sorry in advance if that's the case, but from CJK point of
> view, I would like the warnings/errors limited only to id and class
> attributes if we were doing.

What is different about the CJK case?

> The basic idea is not to validate normalization state of any displayable
> contents.

Is that in fact the basic idea? I understand why it's more important to
report non-NFC for the values of id attributes and such, but from what I've
been told by others so far, there is also some value in warning for
displayable content as well.

> Attributes like alt in <img> can contain displayable contents.
> 
> If emitting warning is important for someone, I can live with warnings.
> But if we don't have any such situation in mind, I'd like it not to even
> warn.

I am inclined to keep having it emit the warning for now -- unless/until
anybody can point me to real-world content for which, say, the volume of
the warnings is excessive to the point where they are counterproductive.

> For instance, DAISY is required to validate their contents before
> publish. They can create a new rule to ignore NFC warnings for contents
> when moving to EPUB3, but it still help them if validator does not emit
> warnings.

They don't have to create rule to ignore the warnings; they can simply
ignore them. Warnings don't affect the validity of a document.

  --Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael[tm] Smith
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 2:35 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NFC in HTML5 (was: RE: Slots for Cyrillic Accented Vowels)
> 
> "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, 2011-05-26 09:31 -0700:
> 
> [quoting somebody]
> > > I complained that HTML5 or validator  http://validator.w3.org/
> > > *requires* NFC.
> > > This might be a bug in the validator and not actually a requirement of HTML5.
> > 
> > I believe that the W3C I18N WG does not support or think that it is a
> > good idea for HTML5 to require NFC--but I'm not aware of any normative
> > language in the HTML5 spec that requires it. This page [1] suggests that
> > the normalizer was added to the validator in response to Charmod-Norm
> > (which does not actually require NFC). If someone has a pointer to an NFC
> > requirement in HTML5, it would be most appreciated if you could forward
> > it to www-international@w3.org (or to me privately if you prefer).
> 
> For the record: There is no NFC requirement in HTML5. The fact that the
> HTML5 facet of the W3C markup validator currently reports non-NFC as a
> error is a bug in the validator.nu backend that the HTML5 facet relies on.
> 
> I'll fix that bug and push it to the W3C markup validator next week.
> 
> The fix is that the same message will be emitted but it will be a
> warning-level message instead of an error-level one -- because I'm told
> that's what would be consistent with current i18n best-practices guidance
> with regard to NFC.  But if anybody thinks the HTML5 validator should not
> emit a warning for non-NFC (in content as well as in attributes), please
> let me know.
> 
>   --Mike
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2011 14:08:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 May 2011 14:08:51 GMT