W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Case Sensitivity in CSS [I18N-ACTION-171]

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:24:11 +0000
Message-ID: <50F841CB.5060600@w3.org>
To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
On 17/01/2013 17:08, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>  > the spec should require that *the user* should henceforth work with
> CSS as if it were case-sensitive throughout.
> That is problematic, if there are no clear requirements on implementers
> of CSS.

I wasn't suggesting that there are no clear requirements on 
implementers, or that different browsers should do different things.

> People easily overlook casing differences, and so they end up producing
> pages that will work on some browsers but not on others. This happens
> all the time. Just having the spec say they ought to will have little or
> no effect. Given that it is already ASCII-case-insensitive:
>   * It would be best if CSS were required to be consistently
>     case-insensitive, ASCII or not. (That is *not* rocket science.)
>   * Second best (because of backwards compatibility) would be a
>     requirement for ASCII-case-insensitivity, but case-sensitivity for
>     all other characters.
> Leaving it open for different browsers to have different sensitivities
> would be terrible. Saying that while the browsers are required to do
> exactly X, but users should do Y is pointless.

I disagree. We do that all the time when we deprecate things in specs. 
What I'm saying is that CSS should recommend that authors used CSS 
case-sensitively from now on, and reinforce that by going for 
case-sensitivity where possible in future developments, but that 
implementations will still need to support ACI for legacy content.


> Mark
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org
> <mailto:ishida@w3.org>> wrote:
>     [2] However, as a separate point, it possibly could go further. If
>     it's only the machines that have to worry about ACI in some areas,
>     and if it's for backwards compatibility reasons, it may allow us to
>     specify exactly which identifiers and syntax elements are ACI *as a
>     closed list*. That is, if a new pre-defined and ASCII-only
>     identifier for, say, counters is added in the future, is can also be
>     handled as case-sensitive by implementations.  As long as users
>     treat CSS as case-sensitive from a practical point of view, this
>     won't cause a problem.
> Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
> /
> /
> /— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
> //////

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

Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 18:24:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:34 UTC