- From: DeeDeeG via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:14:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Sorry for three comments in a row, but I see now what the 5-option proposal means. The default browser behavior, no css applied, would be arbitrary and unspecified, whatever browsers want. Then 5 actually standardized behaviors. 1. default: try to obey Unicode guidelines 2. text: try to render everything as text, unless it happens to have a VS-16 on it, try to render those as emoji 3. emoji: try to render everything as emoji, unless it happens to have a VS-15 on it, try tto render those as text 4. text-override: try to render everything as text 5. emoji-override: try to render everything as emoji Here's the problem though. Font designers have obeyed Unicode's emoji guidance. Fonts are mutually consistent and inter-operable right now. Browsers thus far have not obeyed the Unicode guidelines. Browsers have mostly ignored VS 15 and VS 16, plain fonts have fought with emoji fonts over the could-be-text-or-could-be-emoji code-points, and presentation style has been very inconsistent from browser to browser, OS to OS, vendor to vendor, site to site etc. The simplest, most consensus-over-chaos intervention would be to have the 3-option route, and ideally have browsers obey Unicode's guidance by default. The 5-options proposal embraces chaos and says "order is optional. Order is declared via CSS, and without it, chaos/arbitrary freedom is the happy default." (in my view, this leads to essentially random, inconsistent, intentionally unspecified behavior by default, and will continue to baffle the lay-public and users of outdated browser versions that don't support CSS4, as to why "emoji don't work how they're supposed to.") My ideological stance is that chaos-by-default is a missed opportunity for consistency-by-default, but I can see the other side now. To summarize, The 5-option proposal idealistically assumes browsers will make a sane deliberate choice for how to render emoji by default (unlikely given what we have today IMO), and suggests five actually standardized approaches to be specified via CSS. -- GitHub Notification of comment by DeeDeeG Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1144#issuecomment-294281833 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 15 April 2017 09:14:18 UTC