Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions

I think including "historic Tibetan justification" in an appendix is 
appropriate. Though not common in modern typography, historic techniques 
and writing modes are used in academic/scholarly publications and are often 
used for effect in advertising. (Since many web sites are used for 
transmitting educational and research work and others have significant 
advertising content, it seems appropriate document the correct methodology 
and to retain the description as a optional service.)


At 2007.02.23-15:04(+1300), fantasai wrote:

>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
>>Personally, I would prefer removing the text and putting it in a note now
>>instead of after the draft is sent out.
>
>The point of putting the description of Tibetan justification in this
>draft is so that it gets documented somewhere. Removing the description
>before publication defeats that purpose.
>
>~fantasai

At 2007.02.22-18:06(-0800), Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:

>What I am saying is that an annex/appendix should be created that has
>the information and publish that annex/appendix. This should be doable
>in a short amount of time.
>
>Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:04 AM
>To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
>Cc: WWW International; www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions
>
>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> > Personally, I would prefer removing the text and putting it in a note
>now
> > instead of after the draft is sent out.
>
>The point of putting the description of Tibetan justification in this
>draft is so that it gets documented somewhere. Removing the description
>before publication defeats that purpose.
>
>~fantasai

At 2007.02.22-18:59(-0800), Asmus Freytag wrote:

>On 2/22/2007 6:04 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>
>>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
>>>Personally, I would prefer removing the text and putting it in a note now
>>>instead of after the draft is sent out.
>>
>>The point of putting the description of Tibetan justification in this
>>draft is so that it gets documented somewhere. Removing the description
>>before publication defeats that purpose.
>Information about handling aspects of a particular script can also be 
>documented as a Unicode Technical Note (see http://www.unicode.org/notes).
>
>UTNs are a great way to collect information that is useful and interesting 
>to people engaged in implementing a script. UTNs can be submitted by 
>anyone, and the requirements are deliberately non-restrictive. An informal 
>review will establish that the contents are "of interest to implementers 
>of the Unicode Standard" (which definitely would include information on 
>handling texts in specific scripts) and that the contents do not 
>contradict normative features of the Unicode Standard (which I can't 
>imagine would apply here).
>
>UTNs are a great solution for material that is useful, but not 'standard' 
>enough to make it into formal specifications.
>
>The format requirements for UTNs are fairly low - in many cases, there's 
>just a cover page added to an existing document.
>
>A./
>
>
>

At 2007.02.23-21:44(+1300), fantasai wrote:

>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
>>What I am saying is that an annex/appendix should be created that has
>>the information and publish that annex/appendix. This should be doable
>>in a short amount of time.
>
>Ok, I think I see what you mean. I can certainly shift the definition
>into an appendix in CSS3 Text. I'm not sure how you want it done, though.
>Should I write it to define a 'tibetan' keyword, but define it within
>an informative appendix; or should I write only the description of how
>the justification system works, and say that CSS3 does not provide a
>means of triggering this sytem?
>
>Personally, I feel that putting it in an appendix makes it feel more
>important and more permanent than marking it as to-be-deleted.. but
>if you prefer putting it in an appendix, I can do that.
>
>~fantasai

At 2007.02.23-02:09(-0800), Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:

>I liked Asmus' suggestion to make the information a UTN.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:45 PM
>To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
>Cc: WWW International; www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions
>
>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> > What I am saying is that an annex/appendix should be created that has
> > the information and publish that annex/appendix. This should be doable
> > in a short amount of time.
>
>Ok, I think I see what you mean. I can certainly shift the definition
>into an appendix in CSS3 Text. I'm not sure how you want it done,
>though.
>Should I write it to define a 'tibetan' keyword, but define it within
>an informative appendix; or should I write only the description of how
>the justification system works, and say that CSS3 does not provide a
>means of triggering this sytem?
>
>Personally, I feel that putting it in an appendix makes it feel more
>important and more permanent than marking it as to-be-deleted.. but
>if you prefer putting it in an appendix, I can do that.
>
>~fantasai

At 2007.02.23-23:32(+1300), fantasai wrote:

>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
>>I liked Asmus' suggestion to make the information a UTN.
>
>Wouldn't that make it seem /more/ important for an implementor
>to implement, than merely letting it sit in an old draft of
>CSS3 Text with a note that says "to be deleted because it's
>inappropriate in modern typography"?
>
>~fantasai

At 2007.02.23-05:26(-0800), Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:

>I'll write a proposed draft for this area next week and submit it to the 
>lists for comment.
>
>An entire document on justification could be written that would help 
>people understand expansion opportunities, compression, etc. I don't know 
>that it makes it any more or less compelling to implement. However, I 
>think that if the information is worth keeping around it should be done right.
>
>Paul
>
>________________________________
>
>From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>Sent: Fri 2/23/2007 6:32 PM
>To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
>Cc: WWW International; www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: CSS3 Text - Edit suggestions
>
>
>
>Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> > I liked Asmus' suggestion to make the information a UTN.
>
>Wouldn't that make it seem /more/ important for an implementor
>to implement, than merely letting it sit in an old draft of
>CSS3 Text with a note that says "to be deleted because it's
>inappropriate in modern typography"?
>
>~fantasai


---Steve Deach
    sdeach@adobe.com

Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 14:49:45 UTC