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

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:54:37 +0100, MURATA Makoto  
<eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:

> 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.

I don't think we can create a (good) generic solution without
considering the individual use cases it is trying to solve, and
see if it solves them well. But I disagree that we have to solve
(ie. spec, write tests for, implement, ship..) these use cases
individually first to be able to create the generic solution.

> 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?

I don't believe the solution I am proposing will be that hard.
But that is also why I have started making a draft for it. After
working on it for a little while, if our conclusion is that it
is too complicated and is a bad solution, then maybe it should
be abandoned. But I don't think it will be that hard to use.

  - Florian

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 13:04:12 UTC