- From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:54:37 +0900
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
2011/12/13 Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>: > Koji Ishii wrote: > > > 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. > > I'd rather not define script-specific values without a generic > mechanism -- it will lead to difficult discussions about which scripts > should be prioritized and why. But I think it's possible to define > @text-transform within a reasonable time -- this could be a win-win > scenario. Although your desire for a universal solution is very sensible, I do not think that such a solution can be invented without creating and using ad-hoc solutions first. After all, Unicode could not happen without having experiences with legacy encodings. I am also worried about universal-but-hard-to-use solutions. For example, some subset of sed or perl would be a very universal solution. But isn't such a subset overkill? Hard to use and hard to implement? Regards, Makoto Regards, Makoto
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:55:05 UTC