- From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:57:47 -0000
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>, <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>
Regarding the question - > whether we publish > with Tibetan justification defined and marked as deprecated, > or we publish without it and leave people with an archived > copy of my scratchpad with an incorrect understanding of how > it works and an incorrect understanding of its usefulness (or > lack thereof) in modern typesetting. Might it be appropriate for an Appendix? Or could the WG publish it as a Note? Best wishes, Melinda > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:19 PM > To: Paul Nelson (ATC) > Cc: www-style@w3.org; www-international@w3.org; w3c-css-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions > > > Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote: > > The rational of moving hypenation from a script-specific > context to an > > open application where it may (or may not apply) is that we do not > > know all of the places where hyphenation might apply. Rather than > > having us be experts in all scripts, having generic wording that > > allows UAs to implement hyphenation and word breaking to > the best of > > their ability (and hopefully improve over time), a generic > statement will help the specification be more robust. > > Is the wording in my last email sufficient? > > > I believe that a lot of effort has been put into helping UAX 14 be > > implementable. I would have a higher level of confidence in > making the > > line breaking dependent on UA implementation than calling out that > > breaking generally occurs "at" punctuation. I don't know how "at > > punctuation" should be implemented and therefore see ambiguity > > introduced. I believe we should avoid introducing this > ambiguity and > > encourage the use of standards whose purpose it is to > provide the right kind of data. > > The two paragraphs we're talking about are meant to provide > background information, not to set any normative > requirements. I've been very careful to avoid any > normative-sounding wording. If it really makes you nervous, I > can explicitly mark those paragraphs non-normative. > > Notice also that the new wording doesn't use "at > punctuation". Please reply about the text I've just given > you, not what you replied to last week!! You didn't answer > any of my questions. :( :( > > >> In these systems a line can break anywhere <em>except</em> between > >> certain character combinations. > > Is the plan to list all of the combinations? Or, is there a > normative > > document that can be referenced? > > There is no plan to list all of the combinations. We will > normatively reference the normative parts of UAX14, and > informatively reference the rest, along with other standards > such as JIS X 4051. Line breaking rules are ultimately up to > the UA. There is a lot of room for tailoring there and > requiring, e.g. the pairs-based algorithm in UAX14 would > prevent any higher quality implementations. > > > The issue with Tibetan justification is that groups like FLOSS have > > read the working draft document are then trying to figure > out how to implement it. > > That is unfortunate because it is not a useful expediture of the > > volunteer's time. If one considers wood blocks and wants to emulate > > them then it may be beneficial. However, if you leave the > information > > in the spec there will be many people who think that is the > norm. Lets discuss this at the F2F meeting. > > I think we should publish this draft before the F2F meeting > so we can get feedback on i18n issues from people like Asmus, > C J Fynn, and the w3c i18n community, and feedback on other > issues like text-decoration and hyphenation from the > www-style community. That feedback should be part of our > discussion at the F2F: therefore we need to publish the draft > before then. If you agree that such feedback would be > valuable for our discussions, then we must agree that we > can't wait until the F2F meeting to decide whether we publish > with Tibetan justification defined and marked as deprecated, > or we publish without it and leave people with an archived > copy of my scratchpad with an incorrect understanding of how > it works and an incorrect understanding of its usefulness (or > lack thereof) in modern typesetting. > > If you want a more obvious note about the deprecated status > of Tibetan justification, tell me what to write and I'll put it in. > > > I second the idea that we talk about hyphenation at the F2F > meeting at > > end of March. > > Ok. > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 06:58:52 UTC