- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:23:22 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, "www International" <www-international@w3.org>
Anne wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:46 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Hmmm. "Valid Unicode codepoint" seems fine to me, it's talking about > > the codepoint, not whether there's a character represented by that or not. > > But I'm not going to quibble, I've updated the spec to remove the term. > > Well the difference matters. Can we render any code point, or do we only > render Unicode scalar values (code points minus lone surrogates). > I'm kinda hoping the latter, but I'm pretty sure in Gecko at least it's the former. > Whether unicode-range should support lone surrogates might be separate from > that I suppose. > The difference matters in some cases, but probably not in this case. The unicode-range feature exists to allow a range of characters to be specified. It would be hugely painful if we forced users to skip around non-character code points (such as surrogates or, for example, U+FFFF). It would be silly to use unicode ranges to say that your font supported, say, the range 0xD800 to 0xD9FF, but it isn't necessary to prohibit it. Addison
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 14:23:50 UTC