- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:44:34 +0100
- CC: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
[Forwarding on behalf of John Klensin] > Note: John K, could you review this one in particular to see if you are satisfied? https://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/337 Two (contradictory) answers: (1) I'm pretty sure that I understood the CSS text when I read it in January. Given the amount of trouble being agnostic on the line-end convention has caused, I found the text profoundly unsatisfying then and find it profoundly unsatisfying now. (2) I am now clear that the CSS group has no intention of changing the present situation and apparently likes it that way. While I will continue to disagree, I am satisfied that the text is adequately clear about that position. Two observations (not further complaints or justification for leaving this open unless others agree): (i) Unless there is general consensus that Unicode's attempt to introduce an unambiguous Line Separator in form of U+2028 has been a complete failure, I suppose the CSS document would be better off either including it as an additional alternative (to "... document language–defined segment break, CRLF sequence (U+000D U+000A), carriage return (U+000D), and line feed (U+000A)...") or mentioning why it is not so included. (ii) I believe that the Unicode Standard discussion of "NLF" represents a better approach than the indifference ("does not define...") expressed in the CSS spec. I.e., one should be permissive in what is accepted but should canonical all of them to a single preferred form. john On 23/04/2014 09:45, Koji Ishii wrote: >> The discussion of line termination is very hard to follow. >> It isn't clear from reading it whether CSS prefers CRLF, LF, or >> other forms in output or whether it intends to provide a >> suggestion. The document itself appears to prefer CRLF in >> some places and LF only in others (e.g., 4.1.2). If nothing >> else, I hope we can agree that switching conventions in a >> single document or rendering is probably a bad idea. >> >> This issue may be handled by CSS Syntax, which could be referenced here. > > I believe the definition of a segment break in White Space Processing Details[1] makes this point very clear; CSS does not make any preferences nor suggestions on CR, LF, or CRLF. > > 4.1.2 mentions LF only because it’s talking about transforming segment breaks defined above to LF, which looks fine to me. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#segment-break > > /koji > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 13:45:07 UTC