RE: [css3-writing-modes] referring to Unicode

> > Since CSS specs are both explaining behavior and defining
> > implementation, referring to a Unicode technical note is fine for
> > referring to a deeper explanation of a concept but is *not* sufficient
> > for defining implementation behavior. Implementation behavior should
> > be defined in terms of the Unicode database [1] instead, by
> > referencing specific data fields in specific files, e.g. the
> > EastAsianWidth.txt file in your example here.  The technical notes
> > often don't always cover all the subtleties implicit in using this
> > data and that's something any definition of implementation behavior
> > needs to cover explicitly, otherwise you end up with untestable muddle.
> 
> The EastAsianWidth.txt file is referenced from UAX11. UAX11 gives the
> explanation of what it means, how to use it, etc. So I think that referring to
> UAX11 is the correct thing to do here. I'll let Addison correct me if I'm wrong.

In my opinion, you are correct to use UAX11 as a reference. UAX means "Unicode Standard Annex", i.e. it is an integral part of the Unicode Standard. John Daggett's comments do apply to some other classes of Unicode Technical Report and sometimes an Annex (or Technical Standard) may not be complete as a reference unto itself. But, in this case, UAX11 deals with East Asian Widths and focuses on defining the Unicode informative property in question. It is thus probably the best reference to EastAsianWidth.txt, although a separate reference to the latter file might also be useful for implementers.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 21:02:17 UTC