- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:47:50 +0200
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 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
Also sprach John Hudson:
> 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.
I agree.
> 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).
Why map to scripts? CSS applies properties to elements and a CSS
processor shouldn't have to know about scripts. If one wants (say)
certain justification parameters to be set on some text, that text
should be in an element and the parameters should be expressed in
properties and values.
> 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.
Indeed.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 22:57:29 UTC