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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:23:32 +0000
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290AD4C9CA@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Koji Ishii:] 
> For #1, it looks strange to me. When EPUB WG came to us and wanted to
> refer our WDs two years ago, didn't we recommend not to do that because
> WDs could possibly change drastically? Didn't we recommend them to refer
> at least a dated version, or even have a copy rather than moving target if
> they have to use WDs? It looks to me that what you're recommending is to
> do exactly what we asked EPUB WG not to do. Did I miss something here?
As I recall, EPUB was not just referring to our specs but defined their
format in terms of specific draft versions of our own i.e. they specified
a CSS profile that included work in progress. For instance, EPUB30 
specifically refers to the 3/24/11 version of CSS3 Fonts for the syntax 
of that feature [1]. This means future CSS working draft updates could 
introduce breaking changes for EPUB, prevent EPUB implementors from using 
standard engines, require a browser engine wishing to support EPUB to implement
and maintain a different version of a given property etc. As Tab would say, 
such a situation is fraught with footguns. We had a similar scenario with 
a different consortium that took a dependency on working and editor's drafts 
and formally objected to our making a change.

So yes, you could say the intent here is to *not* put ourselves in EPUB's 
position vis-a-vis Unicode. We do not want to depend on a specific version
of UTR50, or of its data. Does that make sense?

[1] http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-contentdocs.html#sec-css-profile

Received on Saturday, 30 June 2012 22:24:04 UTC

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