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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:12:25 -0700
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE6EEC8A.D275%galineau@adobe.com>


On 9/29/13 10:48 PM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>
>>As Sylvain has noted, it would be helpful at this point to have more
>>information about the implementors who feel it's important to have
>>complex fallback for fonts that lack vertical alternates for 'Tr'
>>codepoints. I don't see much value in arguing about Unicode compliance
>>or the fine points of which codepoints are classified which way in
>>UTR50.
>
>Does the above paragraph give you what you requested here?

I think I've lost count of how many times you've been asked to provide
more information about those increasingly mysterious implementors and
ignored the question. If you still cannot back up your claim with useful
information about these individuals and their rationale then I think this
alleged feedback should be considered null until such time as further
information emerges.

>
>I'm seeing multiple times why your proposed behavior is important, but
>we're in consensus on that point (except James,) and your proposal is
>already in the spec for more than a year.
>
>The point of discussion here is that, whether we want to prohibit
>Unicode-compliant behavior or not, right?

Given the explicit lack of agreement that Unicode compliance is an issue I
do not quite see how this could *possibly* be the point of discussion???

Or is 'Unicode compliance' the last-ditch argument to force your preferred
solution in the absence of any actual implementor feedback?

Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 16:12:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 September 2013 16:12:54 UTC