RE: [css-text] I18N-ISSUE-331: No kashida style or relationship to styles 'distribute' and 'inter-word'

Some comments follow.

> There was a request in Tucson F2F[1] that:
> * “auto” automagically does the best justification for the content language

Which is fine. Note that our comment is that *only* the "auto" justification selects "kashida" (if any do).

> * Define values only when multiple choices of justification behavior are
> required within one language

Which is also "okay", insofar as it goes. But some of these justification forms are ill-suited to certain scripts or languages. And kashida certainly meets this criterion: several languages might need to select it.

> * That behavior should be described so that implementers who do not know the
> language can implement in an interoperable way and with our knowledge, the
> “kashida” value did not meet the criteria.

Kashida is not currently well-described in English, so far as I know. I have it on good authority that there is at least one book in Persian on the topic. I am unaware (having neither seen the book nor the ability to read Persian) of whether this would apply generally or only to that language family, or how well this document succeeds at its task.

So I agree that kashida does not meet this criterion presently. But, since you mention it in the text (you even have an example of Tasmeem rendering it), it seems like an oversight to mention it and even encourage it in "auto" but not do say anything further (such as whether it is on or off in one of the other modes or if those modes).
> The discussion started to cut values down to “auto | distribute”[2], then we had
> information that “none” and “inter-word” meet the criteria.

I agree that these all meet the criteria you established. The question we asked is what the effect of some of the other keywords (notably inter-word) would be on a kashida implementation (as well as whether a kashida type or types could be created later).
> Can you give such information for “kashida”?

See above. We would like to, but are not in a position to.


Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 22:00:56 UTC