- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:37:40 +0100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
My original comment was purely an editorial issue, which I believe has been fixed. Perhaps we should continue this discussion on a new thread, since it is not directly related. RI On 17/09/2013 08:13, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > On 9/15/13 1:28 PM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > >> On 2013/09/13 20:22, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Kew<jfkthame@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> This is a tricky issue, IMO. What would it mean for the rendering >>>> subsystem >>>> to "treat lone surrogates as errors", exactly? >>> >>> Basically to treat them as if U+FFFD was passed. That's how we deal >>> with them in the encoding layer and in character references and such. >> >> So that would mean that all lone surrogates render the same, and the >> same as some other stuff? I think it would be better to show what's >> there, because that may help in debugging. > > +1. If something is going to be shown, the hexbox option seems the most > helpful. > -- Richard Ishida
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 16:38:27 UTC