W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

RE: [css3-text] Appendix F not needed

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 06:19:45 -0500
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0DA44ED94F@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> But if the spec refers to Unicode it's not needed. I think it makes much, much more sense
> to refer to a Unicode spec for character properties, both from a maintenance perspective
> and from a domain knowledge perspective.  The CSS group should defer to Unicode on
> these matters unless there is a very strong reason not to.  Given that UAX
> 14 has explicitly referred to the line-break property, it makes much more sense to refer
> to the 'CJ' class directly.  If we want to quibble about the exact set of characters included,
> we should raise an issue with the Unicode folks and not create our own ad-hoc character
> classes unless it's absolutely necessary.

I disagree. Unicode usually defines the baseline for plain text or when no other information is available, and usually recommends applications or higher-level protocols to tailor as appropriate. Since CSS is one of the most common higher-level protocols, CSS should tailor Unicode definitions as needed.

In this case, there are several code points that change their behavior by the information Unicode cannot have such as script, and there are demands for more features such as ''loose'' than Unicode would like to support today, I think tailoring makes more sense than to ask Unicode to do all the work we need.


Received on Sunday, 9 December 2012 11:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:24 UTC