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

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:20:54 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E7CC8BAE9E8@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
> 
> 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.

Didn't I say noting individual name is not allowed at UTC, and therefore I cannot do that?

If you really want to discuss Unicode issues, the only way to do it properly is to go to Unicode ML. Why don't you want to do it?


> 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?

Who asked for it, and whether a spec is Unicode compliant or not, are two different issues. Regardless of who asked for it, if we remove the option, CSS will be incompliant.

I think John is in agreement on this point; he's not agreeing with the importance of Unicode compliance because it's informative, and the definition is not good, if I understand correctly. It's first time in this discussion that someone is not agree on that point. What makes you think that way?

/koji

Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 23:21:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 September 2013 23:21:28 UTC