RE: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions

Regarding the question -

> whether we publish 
> with Tibetan justification defined and marked as deprecated, 
> or we publish without it and leave people with an archived 
> copy of my scratchpad with an incorrect understanding of how 
> it works and an incorrect understanding of its usefulness (or 
> lack thereof) in modern typesetting.

Might it be appropriate for an Appendix?  Or could the WG publish it as
a Note?

Best wishes,

Melinda
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
> Cc: www-style@w3.org; www-international@w3.org; w3c-css-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions
> 
> 
> Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> > The rational of moving hypenation from a script-specific 
> context to an 
> > open application where it may (or may not apply) is that we do not 
> > know all of the places where hyphenation might apply. Rather than 
> > having us be experts in all scripts, having generic wording that 
> > allows UAs to implement hyphenation and word breaking to 
> the best of 
> > their ability (and hopefully improve over time), a generic 
> statement will help the specification be more robust.
> 
> Is the wording in my last email sufficient?
> 
> > I believe that a lot of effort has been put into helping UAX 14 be 
> > implementable. I would have a higher level of confidence in 
> making the 
> > line breaking dependent on UA implementation than calling out that 
> > breaking generally occurs "at" punctuation. I don't know how "at 
> > punctuation" should be implemented and therefore see ambiguity 
> > introduced. I believe we should avoid introducing this 
> ambiguity and 
> > encourage the use of standards whose purpose it is to 
> provide the right kind of data.
> 
> The two paragraphs we're talking about are meant to provide 
> background information, not to set any normative 
> requirements. I've been very careful to avoid any 
> normative-sounding wording. If it really makes you nervous, I 
> can explicitly mark those paragraphs non-normative.
> 
> Notice also that the new wording doesn't use "at 
> punctuation". Please reply about the text I've just given 
> you, not what you replied to last week!! You didn't answer 
> any of my questions. :( :(
> 
> >> In these systems a line can break anywhere <em>except</em> between 
> >> certain character combinations.
> > Is the plan to list all of the combinations? Or, is there a 
> normative 
> > document that can be referenced?
> 
> There is no plan to list all of the combinations. We will 
> normatively reference the normative parts of UAX14, and 
> informatively reference the rest, along with other standards 
> such as JIS X 4051. Line breaking rules are ultimately up to 
> the UA. There is a lot of room for tailoring there and 
> requiring, e.g. the pairs-based algorithm in UAX14 would 
> prevent any higher quality implementations.
> 
> > The issue with Tibetan justification is that groups like FLOSS have 
> > read the working draft document are then trying to figure 
> out how to implement it.
> > That is unfortunate because it is not a useful expediture of the 
> > volunteer's time. If one considers wood blocks and wants to emulate 
> > them then it may be beneficial. However, if you leave the 
> information 
> > in the spec there will be many people who think that is the 
> norm. Lets discuss this at the F2F meeting.
> 
> I think we should publish this draft before the F2F meeting 
> so we can get feedback on i18n issues from people like Asmus, 
> C J Fynn, and the w3c i18n community, and feedback on other 
> issues like text-decoration and hyphenation from the 
> www-style community. That feedback should be part of our 
> discussion at the F2F: therefore we need to publish the draft 
> before then. If you agree that such feedback would be 
> valuable for our discussions, then we must agree that we 
> can't wait until the F2F meeting to decide whether we publish 
> with Tibetan justification defined and marked as deprecated, 
> or we publish without it and leave people with an archived 
> copy of my scratchpad with an incorrect understanding of how 
> it works and an incorrect understanding of its usefulness (or 
> lack thereof) in modern typesetting.
> 
> If you want a more obvious note about the deprecated status 
> of Tibetan justification, tell me what to write and I'll put it in.
> 
> > I second the idea that we talk about hyphenation at the F2F 
> meeting at 
> > end of March.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 06:58:49 UTC