Re: [csswg-drafts] [css‑fonts‑4] Add `emoji` as a keyword to `unicode‑range` (#4573)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Add ISO 15924 script codes to unicode-range`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: we are going to create keywords for unicode ranges`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;stantonm> topic: Add ISO 15924 script codes to unicode-range<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4573<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: unicode-range takes bunch of code-points<br>
&lt;dbaron> the addition of those two agenda items was https://wiki.csswg.org/planning/galicia-2020?do=diff&amp;rev2%5B0%5D=1569210305&amp;rev2%5B1%5D=1570141384&amp;difftype=sidebyside<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... bad for a couple reasons, lots of numbers and not clear what they mean<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... also when adding some like emoji, you can list all unicode points - but it changes over time<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... proposal to add keyword that lets the browsers define the code points<br>
&lt;stantonm> florian: what are the keywords<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: issue says use pull keywords from ISO<br>
&lt;stantonm> hober: we shouldn't define these things, reference something in unicode<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: different languages use some common code points<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... keywords shouldn't be a partition, there will be overlaps<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... space character will be in most of them<br>
&lt;stantonm> fantasai: two factors, script extensions list - some of these are assigned to common script<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... we should be looking up script extensions<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... other case is super common things - numbers, space, etc<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... alot of things assigned to common script<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... probably makes sense to include common by default, but have opt out<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: we should resolve that we would like keywords, but not resolve on the actual keywords<br>
&lt;stantonm> fantasai: we should rely on iso<br>
&lt;stantonm> faceless2: rely on existing registry<br>
&lt;stantonm> astearns: should we have everything in the registry<br>
&lt;stantonm> heycam: do the names in the registry match normal css conventions?<br>
&lt;stantonm> TabAtkins: looks like no?<br>
&lt;stantonm> fantasai: should be a list of keywords 4 chars long<br>
&lt;faceless2> https://www.unicode.org/Public/12.1.0/ucd/Scripts.txt<br>
&lt;astearns> `Zsye 993: Emoji`<br>
&lt;stantonm> TabAtkins: if we're confident they are 4 letters, we can take directly<br>
&lt;stantonm> fantasai: think that should be fine, they need to maintain compat<br>
&lt;faceless2> example values : "Hebrew", "Devanagari", "Common"<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: we may get it wrong, can we tentatively resolve to try something out first<br>
&lt;stantonm> florian: go with 4 letter name of long name? or not deciding<br>
&lt;stantonm> faceless2: where did four letter name come from?<br>
&lt;stantonm> florian: long name has hyphens, 4 letter is defined somewhere else<br>
&lt;stantonm> TabAtkins: casing shouldn't be important<br>
&lt;dbaron> The 4 letter script codes are always letters and come from ISO15924: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646#section-2.2.3<br>
&lt;stantonm> astearns: leave it to the fonts editors to define what keywords we pull, don't need to resolve on that now<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: I'll also contact unicode<br>
&lt;stantonm> jfkthame: should there also be exclusion values?<br>
&lt;stantonm> hober: if you could exclude a range, you could exclude common range<br>
&lt;stantonm> myles: be careful we don't turn this into a full language<br>
&lt;stantonm> chris: even if you do a good job, when unicode adds new values you may unintentionally exclude things<br>
&lt;stantonm> ... shift burden of defining onto external body<br>
&lt;dbaron> also see https://unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html<br>
&lt;stantonm> RESOLVED: we are going to create keywords for unicode ranges<br>
&lt;dbaron> "Zsye" is for Emoji, I think :-/<br>
&lt;dbaron> I think that's a little unfortunate.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4573#issuecomment-577727767 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2020 15:20:40 UTC