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

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:27:10 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D5E51CFEF@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> >We should simply reference the UTR data even if it changes. The implementors can
> >address such changes as needed.
> I agree with John and Glenn's overall position. We should refer to UTR50, not snapshot
> it. I also recall
> the resolution and yes, it somehow made sense at the time. But since:
> 1. The resolution implicitly states we *will* reference UTR50 ('...until UTR50
> stabilizes')
> 2. Maintaining a separate snapshot can only lead to confusion for implementors and
> authors alike
> 3. Minimizing this potential confusion ought to be more work for the editors
> Simply referencing this document seems the way to go.

Can I ask then what authors should do today? The question we were given at Hamburg was, do we want them to create tens of thousands of HTML/CSS files based on WebKit's implementation, or do we want to publish our own table.

I assume you're not recommending WebKit given recent discussion on mobile web. I also assume you don't like UA dependent, which I originally proposed. I can't see what your answer is.

If I understand correctly, our ultimate goal is to maximize the interoperability of the Web technologies, so that authors can trust us. So that later implementations can enjoy existing contents. So that users have maximum freedom to choose their favorite browsers to view contents.

I don't think the resolution does anything wrong to the goal.


Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 17:25:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC