W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

RE: [css3-writing-modes] Character's intrinsic orientation

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 23:45:27 -0400
To: "Eric Muller (emuller@adobe.com)" <emuller@adobe.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AC29AED83@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> > Finally, I remain unconvinced by the use of EAW, which has, IMHO, no place in modern Unicode implementations, at least those
> > that do not deal specifically with JIS. For example, U+0391 Α GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA has eaw="A" and while U+1F09 Ἁ GREEK
> > CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA, which is canonically equivalent to <0391, 0314> has eaw="N".
> 
> The problem you cite is not a problem with the current definitions in the spec,
> because we do not use EAW to determine the orientation of letters.

Allow me to add some notes as Eric's concern seems to be a more general concern to the use of EAW in CSS.

You're right that one of the objectives of EAW is for Unicode to work well with legacy encodings, and I completely agree with you that A (ambiguous) is for compatibility with legacy encodings such as JIS and has no logical distinction, but it still serves good information even today as long as you're not relying on A.

CSS specs sometimes relies on EAW in other places than this, but whenever we do that, we pay special attentions not to rely on A. Script=Common|Inherited|Unknown and EAW=A are always not easy to handle, I completely agree with you on that point.


Regards,
Koji
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2011 03:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT