- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:46:58 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On 13/9/13 09:05, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:46 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: >> Hmmm. "Valid Unicode codepoint" seems fine to me, it's talking about the >> codepoint, not whether there's a character represented by that or not. >> But I'm not going to quibble, I've updated the spec to remove the term. > > Well the difference matters. Can we render any code point, or do we > only render Unicode scalar values (code points minus lone surrogates). > I'm kinda hoping the latter, but I'm pretty sure in Gecko at least > it's the former. Whether unicode-range should support lone surrogates > might be separate from that I suppose. Given that it's possible for script to insert lone surrogates into the DOM, I think we have to "render" them in some way - though simply rendering a hexbox, a "broken character" graphic, or perhaps U+FFFD, would be sufficient; there's no need to even attempt font matching as though they were actual characters. Unicode-range, OTOH, is expressing a range of Unicode scalar values for which the font should be considered in the font matching process. A font whose unicode-range is U+0-FFFF, for example, covers the lone-surrogate values, but as font selection operates on characters (and clusters), not on code units, they'd never actually be used. JK
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 08:47:30 UTC