W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: [counter-styles] i18n-ISSUE-339: Should Japanese spec styles match implementations or vice versa?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:31:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAtzKZx4EFTmAHRvCbB_WW28ejoK6YNTSmK4umnp-O0Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, UnicoDe List <unicode@unicode.org>
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
> [cc public-i18n-cjk and unicode@unicode.org to get some more eyes on this]
>
> I don't think you revised the algorithm either. I think this discrepancy has
> been around for a long time.
>
> As Xidorn points out, we're talking here about characters that, yes, exist
> in the kana set, but that are not often used or not often used in this
> context.
>
> That said, this whole spec is about being able to customise these lists
> however you want. So in a sense the list of characters described in the spec
> is a kind of default.
>
> So I'm wondering whether, in that case, it's best to just document the
> exisiting implementations, and allow people to modify the list if they want.
> Unless you have a list of over 44 items you won't meet the problem anyway.

I've made the change to match existing implementations, adding two
characters each to 'hiragana' and 'katakana', and dropping the last
character from each of their -iroha variants.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 21:32:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:36 UTC