- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:30:28 -0800
- To: jfkthame <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015 10:15 AM, "Jonathan Kew" <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/1/15 14:53, Dael Jackson wrote: >> >>> TabAtkins: One issue was about a handful of styles that browsers >>> have implemented but weren't in the draft since we cut >>> it down. I want to add the ones with high >>> interoperability. >>> TabAtkins: About 20 styles are implemented since they are >>> dependable for authors. >>> TabAtkins: The ones that aren't clear is the Tamil style, which is >>> only Firefox and this list: >>> <TabAtkins> afar, oromo, sidama, tigre >> >> >> [snip] >> >>> RESOLVED: Add to Counter Styles the additional styles supported by >>> 2+ browsers (per r12a's email), do not add the styles >>> supported by only one browser. >> >> >> AIUI, this implies that Tamil will be excluded from the predefined styles, >> as it is currently supported only by Firefox. >> >> I believe this would be a very unfortunate situation. Tamil is one of the >> nine basic scripts of India (see [1], for example): >> >> Bengali >> Devanagari >> Gujarati >> Gurmukhi >> Kannada >> Malayalam >> Oriya [Odia] >> Tamil >> Telugu >> >> These are the Indic-family scripts used (along with Latin script, for >> English, and the Perso-Arabic script for Urdu and Sindhi) to write the >> official state languages of India, and form a clear, well-understood set >> that are expected to be treated on an equal footing. >> >> To provide predefined counter styles for eight of these, and exclude the >> ninth, will appear arbitrary and capricious; will be confusing to authors; >> and may even lead to accusations of discrimination against one of India's >> major linguistic communities. >> >> Please reconsider the status of Tamil. The nine major Indian scripts >> should be supported as a set of equals, not divided into what will appear to >> be first- and second-class citizens. > > Our decision to leave Tamil out was based on a simple impl-based criteria. I > was not aware that we had included the other 8 major Indian languages. The > hole is probably very obvious for Indian-language speakers, and > unfortunately easy to misinterpret. I agree that we should include Tamil > despite it having only one current implementation. The WG agreed with your argument, and I've now added Tamil to the list of predefined styles in the spec. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 21:31:16 UTC