W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [css3-text] script categories, 'bicameral', 'discrete', Unicode links and more

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:13:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4DA8C2F5.6020405@tiro.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, indic <public-i18n-indic@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> If we include history when we evaluate scripts, then it is even 
> questionable whether Latin and Greek are bicameral scripts since there 
> are no "bicameralism" in e.g. the Greek sources for the Bible.

Again I come back to my previous point: if what the spec is trying to 
address is line-breaking and justification behaviour, coming at it from 
nominal script categorisation seems like a basic confusion of 
categories. We can get hung up on all sorts of concepts within 
grammatology, when really we don't need to if we instead start by 
defining line-breaking and justification behaviour types, and then look 
at how these map to individual scripts (with appropriate caveats or 
exceptions re. language, locale, style). That makes much more sense to 
me than starting by trying to categorise scripts according to unclear 
and non-discrete criteria and then trying to map these to line-breaking 
and justification behaviours. Start with the function.

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 22:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:59 UTC