- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 09:34:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Admittedly, I don't know all that much about Unicode, but I'm a little puzzled about the (planned) response documented in the file @xfq linked to. The bug report by @fantasai roughly says "the spec doesn't match implementations, maybe the spec should change to match implementations", and a part of the response boils down to be "no, that would break implementations". The other part of the response, that setting ZWSP's General_Category to Cf rather than Zs was very deliberate and justified, seems perfectly reasonable, and even might possibly be enough to go against compatibility concerns (though I'm not the right person to make this call). But citing compatibility concerns in support for keeping the specification unchanged when faced with a claim that implementations do not follow the specification is perplexing. It seems to me that a little bit more testing would be appropriate. I did not do extensive testing, but the implementations I did find to be in violation of the spec are pretty major ones. InDesign, MS Word, LibreOffice, Firefox, EdgeHTML, Chrome (depending on the font), Apple Mail & Apple TextEdit (so presumably the built-in text component of macOS)… -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3861#issuecomment-619859023 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 09:34:46 UTC