- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:41:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
To clarify, you're asking that the normative statements later in the section be changed from "must" statements to "should" statements?
> UAs should assume the most common writing system of the specified content language when choosing typographic behaviors such as line-breaking or justification strategies, but must not assume that writing system if the author has explicitly indicated a different one. If the UA has no language-specific knowledge of a particular language and writing system combination, it must use the typographic conventions of the specified writing system (assuming the conventions of a different language if necessary), not the conventions of that language in a different writing system, which would be inappropriate to the writing system used in this case.
("Should" being the correct term if we agree on the correct behavior but acknowledge that it can't be consistently implemented because of limitations in widely used software.)
Also relevant: have you approached the people responsible for ICU text shaping about whether they could support script-specific breaking?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4445#issuecomment-545626803 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 20:41:14 UTC