- From: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:31:58 +0000
- To: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Thanks, I don't think I tried to say that. > At best, UTR 50 says "if you want to implement fallback, then you might > want to fallback to r (or u)". The "if" is entirely in the hands of CSS. This matches to my understanding. Probably my words did not match to what I wanted to say, sorry about that. I guess "conformant" and "compliant" are too strong word, and after I found so by some replies, I changed the wording to say "what UTR says". Hope this works better. Sorry for a wrong word usage, and thanks anyway. On 10/18/13 7:38 AM, "Eric Muller" <emuller@adobe.com> wrote: You seem to believe that the r/u part of UTR#50 values forces or at least encourages fallback to be implemented. For example: - in your message to this list on 9/28, 4:29AM (the first that day) (paraphrased to make sense): "John says that CSS should prohibit the implementation of fallback, I disagree because we should allow any Unicode-compliant impl as CSS-compliant" - in your message to this list on 10/15, 5:23AM, you say (again paraphrased) "UTR50 says fallback should be attempted" Because the property is informative: - prohibiting fallback (or any other choice, for that matter) does not make the implementation non-Unicode-compliant - UTR50 does not recommend fallback. At best, UTR 50 says "if you want to implement fallback, then you might want to fallback to r (or u)". The "if" is entirely in the hands of CSS. Eric.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 02:33:24 UTC