- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 05:18:20 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@r12a The `auto` value is the notional jukugo value, except that `auto` is a good typical english word and that `jukugo` isn't, so as a choice of a css keyword it wouldn't be great. When it comes to the behavior, the way JLREQ or iso 4051 recommend Jukugo laid out is not the One True Way, just only one possibility (and I am not actualy sure that they're identical to each other). Simple Ruby recommends something different. All are acceptable as implementations of `auto`, and which to use can be considered a quality of implementation question. (There are different subjective takes on what's best.) Individual authors might also have preferences as to which of the various jukugo layout methods they prefer, but offering and specifying them separately at this point would be overkill. In a future level, once everything else is very stable, I could imagine having further switches to get different styles of jukugo layout, but at this point, we're trying to get the whole thing to work at all, so requiring a specific algorithm would be too restrictive. I think we should close with no normative change, but could certainly change example 10 into a Note pointing out that `auto` value is for jukugo, and in addition to JLREQ add more references to what Jukugo is (like https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-ruby#jukugo) and how a UA might render it (such as Simple Ruby, JIS X 4051, etc.). -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/784#issuecomment-771369062 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 05:18:22 UTC