W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

RE: [css3-writing-modes] inconsistent handling of 'Tr' codepoints in 'text-orientation'

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:16:32 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E7CC8BAEA45@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> >You want to reject one optional behavior currently in the spec. James
> >and I in this ML are against. Murakami-san was against as well if I
> >remember correctly. Can you explain why you think we should reject the behavior?
> Which email of James are you referring to?

James's first response[1], and the detail of how to implement[2]. I just figured out that he was convinced to include the John's behavior yesterday[3], but he still wants to have support for other font systems in different method[4], so this looks like a new proposal. I wrote this without reading James changed his mind yesterday.

> I can't make any sense of this compliance argument *at all*, and from
> recent side discussions I'm not alone. Let's recap:
> :
> If 'Unicode compliance' were a requirement *and* implementors needed
> alternatives then all these alternatives must be Unicode-compliant. We
> can't both say CSS's role is to enforce some Unicode feature *and* tell
> implementors it is conformant to ignore it.

Ah, no, it's different from my intention. Maybe the English word "compliance" is stronger than I understand? I don't know which word is more appropriate...anyway.

It's implementers and implementers. On one side, two implementers said it's hard, so we added option B. On the other side, two implementers said they'd favor option A. One of them said he has already implemented option A.

Compatibility with Unicode (does this word work better?) is important because some developers are looking at UTR#50 and implement as is, and then find that CSS-compatible engines cannot call the API directly if UTR#50 behavior is not allowed in CSS. So behind it is implementers.

Hope this makes sense.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0830.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0769.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0011.html

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0013.html


Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 15:17:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:15 UTC