- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:11:12 +0000
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
John Daggett wrote: > > > 4.5. Character range: the unicode-range descriptor > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css-fonts-3-20130711/#unicode-range-desc > > > > "Valid Unicode codepoint values vary between 0 and 10FFFF inclusive." > > Do we need to say something about characters that cannot be used, such > > as surrogate codepoints? > > > > Perhaps what is meant is that the codepoint values cannot be higher > > than 10FFFF or lower than 0. In this case, perhaps the spec should say > > that the codepoint space (range) is between 0 and 10FFFF, rather than > > give the impression that all values in that space are acceptable. > > Hmm, unicode ranges are used to indicate *possible* coverage ranges for fonts. > The actual range used in font matching is ultimately determined by the > intersection of the unicode-range descriptor value with the actual character > map of the font. There's no attempt to separate actual "valid" Unicode values > from ones that are invalid. I don't think I see a need here to discuss the nitty > gritty of surrogate handling. > I don't think that's really the point though. We read this section in the WG call this morning. The text you have got is a little sloppy with the word "valid". The range of Unicode code points is, indeed, "valid" between 0 and 0x10FFFF, but not all of those code points are "valid" characters. We don't really want you to discuss the nitty gritty of surrogates and non-character code points. But the idea is that maybe you should say instead: "Unicode code points range between 0 and 0x10FFFF inclusive" avoiding the problematic word "valid" Addison
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 04:12:19 UTC