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

Please adjust the subject line when you reply to a "Minutes and Resolutions" email.


On Sep 8, 2011, at 5:12 AM, John Daggett wrote:

>> 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 18:13:14 UTC