- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:56:29 -0800
- To: W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: > On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:24, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > > The regular expression defining UNICODE-RANGE in CSS2.1 is > > > > U\+[0-9a-f?]{1,6}(-[0-9a-f]{1,6})? > > > > Core syntax issue 1 (editorial, one hopes): The initial U is in > > upper case. All other core lexical productions are written entirely > > in lower case. > > The U is uppercase only because that is how it usually written, e.g., > U+0048 instead of u+0048; not because the lowercase is invalid. If > that causes confusion, I'm happy to change the "U" to a "u" in the > grammar. It is indeed purely editorial. I would prefer that it be changed. Yes, these are usually written with the U in upper case, but if one is close-reading the spec in order to implement it, it's nice not to have to worry about this maybe being special. > It didn't seem worth it to try and write a pattern that matches only > those UNICODE_RANGE tokens that make sense. It may be possible, but > the pattern would certainly be quite unreadable. So it was left to > the text to explain that certain UNICODE_RANGE tokens are > meaningless. That text was then left out of CSS 2.1, because > UNICODE_RANGE is not used there. > > How to handle those well-formed but meaningless tokens will indeed > have to be explained in css3-fonts. > > So I agree: there is something to do for css3-fonts[1], but nothing > for CSS 2.1. Thanks for the clarification. > > There is also a question of what text is produced by a CSSOM query > > for the value of an arbitrary unicode-range: descriptor. I > > recommend that implementations be allowed, but not required, to > > produce a simplified representation of the range instead of the > > original text. Continuing with the example of > > I have no preference. There is a section on normalization in the > CSSOM and such a text could probably be added there. See > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#parsing Sounds good to me. zw
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:57:53 UTC