W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Add scripts to XForms input-mode script list in Appendix E (PR#106)

From: Steven Pemberton <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:33:52 -0500
Message-Id: <200706131933.l5DJXqYj004035@htmlwg.mn.aptest.com>
To: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org

Martin,

I wonder if it woudn't be more efficient to have this list by reference rather
than by inclusion.

Since you are the author of this section, would you be willing to suggest the
text to replace the list with references to the normative specs?

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton

> Appendix E of this specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#mode),
> entitled "Input Modes", should be updated to be in sync with the most
> recent list of scripts from Unicode/ISO 10646.
> 
> A rough count (using the Unix 'wc' utilty) showed that about 15
> scripts are missing from the list of tokens at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#mode-values.
> 
> A point-by-point comparison with
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.0.0/ucd/PropertyValueAliases.txt
> (look below the line "# Script (sc)") gave the following list
> (more than 15 because E.3.1 contains quite a few special values):
> (starting with lowercase and converting spaces to camelcase in
> line with the currently available tokens (e.g. canaidianAboriginal)).
> 
> balinese
> buginese
> coptic
> cypriot
> glagolitic
> kharoshthi
> limbu
> linearB
> nko
> osmanya
> phagsPa
> phoenician
> shavian
> sylotiNagri
> taiLe
> newTaiLue
> tifinagh
> ugaritic
> oldPersian
> cuneiform
> 
> This list of tokens can be included as is (with "Unicode script name"
> in the Comments column), but should be cross-checked to make sure
> I didn't miss anything. The text above the table can then be updated
> to say "The version of the Unicode Standard that these script name
> are taken from is 5.0." instead of "The version of the Unicode Standard
> that these script names are taken from is 3.2.".
> 
> Many of the scripts (e.g. Cunieform) are not necessarily what you
> would expect as your typical XForms input, but some of the tokens
> already available in XForms 1.0 also don't have a high probability
> of usage, and it's better to be complete than to leave something out
> that later may be needed.
> 
> Some people may raise the concern that adding these script tokens
> will force the spec to go to Last Call again. While this would be
> true for any genuinely new feature being added after Last Call,
> it is difficult to see why a new Last Call would be needed just
> because the list of scripts is being completed. No XForms implementation
> is forced to support all of these values anyway, but not including
> a value that's currently not supported would create a weird
> chicken-and-egg problem.
> 
> Regards,      Martin.
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 19:37:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:15 GMT