- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:40:23 -0800
- To: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
One small nit (thanks to Mati Allouche for pointing it out): Where it says " Where CSS cannot be case-insensitive for legacy reasons", it should say "case-sensitive" Addison > -----Original Message----- > From: Phillips, Addison > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:59 AM > To: CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org) > Cc: www-international@w3.org > Subject: Case Sensitivity in CSS [I18N-ACTION-171] > > Hello CSS, > > In our most recent teleconference [1], I was tasked [2] with conveying the > Internationalization working group's comments to CSS. > > I18N has considered our long thread of conversation, various tests produced by > John Daggett, Richard Ishida, and myself, and other comments and has these > recommendations as a result. > > Case Sensitive comparison: Case sensitive comparison is the best choice for > existing case-sensitive items and for any new features added to CSS. It's the > easiest for content authors to understand and manage, has good performance, > is straight-forward to implement, and does not disadvantage any language > community. We note that most comparisons in CSS are actually case-sensitive. > > We believe you should define case-sensitive comparison using the same rules > and terms that HTML5 does. Our specific resolution [1] was: > > -- > We would recommend that CSS adopt case sensitive comparison going forward > for all identifiers and language elements, except where legacy considerations > apply > -- > > Case Insensitive comparison: Where CSS cannot be case-insensitive for legacy > reasons or for implementation choice reasons, the I18N WG recommends that > comparison be done using Unicode "common" plus "full" case fold mapping, as > we previously recommended. Suggestions that this is hard to implement or low- > performance are, in our opinion, unfounded, as the mapping consists of a > relatively small table. There is a demonstration implementation in JavaScript > [3] and we have confirmed with our Unicode colleagues that this is the right > approach [4]. > > That said, there is an existing special case of Unicode case folding in use in > HTML5 and which is applicable to all or nearly all CSS case-insensitive > comparisons. When the compared namespace is restricted to the US-ASCII 7-bit > range of characters, so-called "ASCII case insensitive" (ACI) comparison may be > used. ACI is a direct subset of the Unicode case fold that we recommend and is > appropriate for the ASCII-only cases in CSS. > > Currently, as far as we are aware, CSS's only case-insensitive features are > restricted to ASCII namespaces and so could have ACI applied to them. The > I18N WG, therefore, is "okay" with CSS defining ACI for these comparisons. The > same text that HTML5 uses to define ACI should be used by CSS. > > If CSS were to add a feature in the future that was not strictly limited to an > ASCII namespace and which was defined as case-insensitive (which we don't > recommend), then Unicode case folding should be the algorithm used in > comparison. Some working group members would prefer if you just defined > Unicode case folding for the ACI case to guard against future inconsistencies, as > we don't believe there is any harm or negative impact from doing this (and > because it addresses the quirks mode problem??). > > Please let us know if CSS agrees with the above positions and/or what concerns > you have. We look forward to reviewing changes to CSS addressing this issue in > the near future. > > Regards (for I18N), > > Addison > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/09-i18n-minutes.html#item07 > [2] http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/171 > [3] http://inter-locale.com/test/css-case-sensitive-demo1.html > [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n- > core/2013Jan/0003.html > > Addison Phillips > Globalization Architect (Lab126) > Chair (W3C I18N WG) > > Internationalization is not a feature. > It is an architecture. >
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 18:04:33 UTC