RE: [css3-text] Splitting CSS Text into Level 3 and Level 4

I agree with fantasai. Floarian's proposal and following discussions look great, but it also feels me that this is a complicated feature to define. I don't see us finding a good answer to simple questions in a reasonable time frame, such as whether it should be based on code point, legacy grapheme cluster, or extended.

I agree with John's general principle too. I see defining some i18n values first and then try to look for general @rule in future is a good incremental approach. But if the WG sees it differently and resolves not to include values that are only used in some scripts, it's very unfortunate for me, but deferring full-size-kana looks better way than defining @text-transform without taking enough time to think about it.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 5:24 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-text] Splitting CSS Text into Level 3 and Level 4

On 12/08/2011 05:38 AM, John Daggett wrote:
>
> This was not proposed as an exciting new feature, it was proposed as a 
> more flexible alternative to the 'full-size-kana' value of the 
> 'text-transform' property in CSS3 Text.  Several members of the group, 
> myself included, have objected to adding 'full-size-kana' on multiple 
> occasions.  This is clearly an issue which should be marked in the 
> spec (it still isn't) and we should try to figure out a solution.
>
> If getting the spec to rec is your main concern, then I suggest we go 
> with a very simple definition of @text-transform for now, get rid of 
> 'full-size-kana' and resolve this issue.  I agree we can extend the 
> feature in a later module.

I would rather defer full-size-kana from Level 3 than push a poorly- thought-out version of @text-transform to CR. All the issue raised against Håkon's 'text-replace' proposal also apply to @text-transform.
I don't think rushing through this by treating it as a syntactic exercise will resolve those problems.

> As a general principle I think we should always be looking for more 
> flexible approaches to problems, especially where internationalization 
> issues are concerned.  Those are often hard to understand and get 
> right on the first pass so I think it's better to take an approach 
> that permits incremental improvements.

I think that's a good principle, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do that.

~fantasai

Received on Sunday, 11 December 2011 18:28:32 UTC