- From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:32:40 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: <www-style@w3.org>, <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>
I have read through the updated text. Following are comments for some more edits. 1. For sake of consistency we should put all Unicode values inside of parenths, e.g. MIDDLE DOT (U+00B7). [especially seen in 7.3] 2. Section 4. Line Breaking (minor editing...grammar) "For most scripts, in the absence of hyphenation a line break only occurs at word boundaries. Many writing systems use spaces or punctuation to explicitly separate words. Normally line break opportunities can be identified..." "and often also Korean" - modern orthographic convention with Korean uses spaces between words. Inclusion here seems to be odd. I don't think it is often. 3. I would like to have the following sentence removed from the draft. It is an opinion that I would hope is no longer valid with current work of the Unicode group. "The CSS Working Group cautions implementers to consider the information in UAX14 with reservation..." 4. Section 4.2 - Replace "very much up-in-the-air" with "under discussion". Sounds more professional. 5. Section 4.1 - Grammar fix: "When shaping scripts, such as Arabic, are allowed to break within words due to 'break-all' or 'break-strict', the characters must still be shaped as if the word is not broken." 6. Section 4.2 - Grammar fix: "If hyphenation is applied to a shaped script, such as Arabic, characters must still be shaped as if the word is not broken/hyphenated." 7. Section 6.2 - Remove "Where do scripts like Tamil fit in?". Tamil and other similar scripts go under the "clustered" classification. 8. Previous mail indicated "flex points" might be replace by "expansion opportunities". 9. Section 7. Spacing. I find this section confusing. Can you provide an example to illustrate the usage? 10. Section 7.2 "UAs must not apply letter-spacing to connected scripts. Or should they?" should be removed. If an author wants to apply a property to something shouldn't the UA honor the author's desire if they can? 11. Section 8.1 - After having some user scenarios provided by some on-line text processing applications, we might need to reconsider the ability to have multiple underlines applied, for example. In the case of a misspelled underlined word we want the underline to remain, with a different color wavy line for the queue for the misspelling. Might need some discussion on this at the F2F meeting. We want to be pragmatic, but not block a common use scenario. Paul
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 03:32:14 UTC