W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text] text-transform's design, intent and reality resolution (#3775)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:38:18 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-669599398-1596670697-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-text] text-transform's design, intent and reality resolution`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-text] text-transform's design, intent and reality resolution<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3775<br>
&lt;florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3775#issuecomment-652733256<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Is brian here?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'd like to speak about it anyway<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Comment jsut posted<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Issue not suggesting we change spec. It was fundimental design of text transform. If we can all agree fundamentally text tansform behaves in a certain way we can use that to build other things. It seems clear we can't agree this is the way it works<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I can give more details, but I think conclusion is no we can't agree, please close this.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I can give arguments why I think it's the opposite, but the conclusion is we cannot agree it's this other thing.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Anyone from Igalia here to talk about this?<br>
&lt;dael> myles: Are you proposing close?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Yes, close with no prejudice. I have nothing against hte math features. Can we agree the fundamental meaning of the document, no we cannot.<br>
&lt;dael> myles: I'm happy to close<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: I think we have to formally agree to disagree in sense of accepting some values of text-transform might have meanings that should pass to assistive and some should be stylistic and that's just the way it is. We cna't seem to agree all one or the other<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I disagree with that. There are values that are clearly only presentational. There are other values...entire putpose of text transform being in css is to make it presentational. a11y layer might want to know and it's appropriate to pass some information to it. I think text-transform beign a css property is not intended to convey semantics.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If you're using a11y api it may take aspects into account but it should not be used for semantics<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/aspects/aspects of presentation/<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/it should/text-transform should/<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Personally I agree with fantasai but issue was that it is in all cases semantic. We certainly have not agreed it's always semantic and never presentational. Maybe we convinced people of fantasai view. THere's nothing to be done here.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I'll take an action item to put some text in the spec clarifying where we're at. We'll review text and decide if we like it<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: If you write what you said it's an improvement and as far as we can move forward with this.<br>
&lt;dael> ACTION fantasai put some text in the spec clarifying where we're at on issue #3775<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3775#issuecomment-669599398 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2020 23:38:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:13 UTC