W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [css2.1] editorial clarification: "case-insensitive" always means "ASCII case-insensitive", y/y?

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:24:48 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100714142448.6a6ae264@moxana.local>
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >Section 4.1.3 says
> >
> >     * All CSS syntax is case-insensitive within the ASCII range
> > (i.e., [a-z] and [A-Z] are equivalent), except for parts that are
> > not under the control of CSS.
> 
> >None of these normative uses are qualified with "within the ASCII
> >range".  It is logical to assume that ยง4.1.3 defines the term, so
> >Unicode-aware case normalization is not required anywhere within
> >CSS, but conversely, one might argue that whenever not explicitly
> >stated, ISO 10646 controls and Unicode-aware case normalization is
> >required.
> 
> That would require arguing that, for instance, pseudo-class names are
> not CSS syntax or not under the control of the CSS specifications. It
> might then also be reasonable to define what the meaning of "is" is,
> to avoid confusion here?

If the other normative uses of "case-insensitive" were *deleted*, then
I would agree that pseudo-class names etc. were clearly "CSS syntax".
But as is, we are saying something that appears to be redundant, so
people will look for interpretations that make them not redundant,
and one obvious possibility is that pseudo-class names etc. are *not*
"syntax", and "case-insensitive" means something different in 5.10,
etc. than it does in 4.1.3.

And yes, this whole thing is hair-splitting.

zw
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 21:25:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT