W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

RE: [css3-writing-modes] vertical orientation and UTR50

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:28:31 +0000
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290AD4CBA3@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu:] 
es interoperable.
> 
> These make sense to me. My guess is that the W3C vs. Unicode Consortium
> situation here is just similar to WHATWG vs. W3C. 

Given the interesting challenges involved in having two HTML specs I'm not 
sure you're reassuring anyone here :) I would argue any such similarity means
we should know why we *need* to put ourselves in this kind of situation.

> Having a bit of personal
> experience with Unicode Consortium, my sense is that Koji is right here,
> and the snapshot version might actually be closer to UTR#50 final than the
> current draft is.
> 
> I think it is certainly better to have a snapshot version placed somewhere
> in w3.org and referenced by css3-writing-modes than Koji hosting his own
> in his domain (and perhaps forking css3-writing-modes too).
> 
I strongly disagree. It is most certainly not 'better' for w3.org to snapshot 
another standard body's work in one of its draft. This is something that we must 
avoid unless there is a clearly established need to do so, with approval from the 
group whose work is being snapshotted. To the extent that 1) this file can be 
directly derived from Unicode's data and 2) we effectively already specify how 
it can be produced in a note then I do not think we need to snapshot anything. 
Making this note normative is sufficient and eliminates any risk of confusion or
misplaced expectations. 


Received on Sunday, 1 July 2012 20:29:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT