W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telecon 2011-09-07

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 05:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1139834206.102896.1315483941987.JavaMail.root@zimbra1.shared.sjc1.mozilla.com>
> jdaggett: goes back to text-orientation. issue of default
> jdaggett: means for a string of random unichars what is the behavious in
>          vertical with no extramarkup
> jdaggett: non-normative wording recommends but not clear if its normative or not
> <fantasai> Um, I don't understand why jdaggett is confused, perhaps he hasn't
>           looked at the draft recently. It says very clearly that the
>           orientations are unequivocally *defined* in Appendix C,
>           because that's what he asked for
> <dsinger> Isn't material not explicitly marked informative considered
>          therefore normative?
> <fantasai> dsinger: That is my understanding.

Appendix C in the last working draft [1] was labeled with "This
appendix is non-normative."  In the latest editor's draft it's
not labeled at all but other appendices are explicitly labeled as
normative.  The body of W3C specs are typically considered
normative but appendices are considered non-normative unless
labeled otherwise (or so it was explained to me).

Additionally, the wording in Appendix C includes "When
‘text-orientation’ is either ‘upright-right’ or ‘upright’, the
following settings are recommended:" which also suggests the
definition is non-normative.  The algorithm relies on the use of
whether a font has "vertical font settings" or not but the
defintion of this is included as a note (i.e. green text), which
is also informative, not normative.

Hence my confusion as to whether this is normative or not.
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 12:12:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:03 UTC