RE: [css3-text] combining transforms

I understand that and I agree. I'm just trying to list up pros and cons of Florian's proposal, I said "weak" in the first two reasons and that includes this one too.

As far as I think, I came up with 3 weak reasons to keep the current syntax. If you don't want to include this even as a weak reason, that'd be 2 weak reasons.

On the other hand, the only reason to change the syntax is "the same thing is doable by @text-transform rule," in a lot lengthy way, and which is still under discussion.

As I said, I'm totally fine to change the syntax if it is reasonable to do so, or the proposal is strong, so I wanted to find reasons to change but without luck.

If we don't come up with any other reasons behind this, I'd prefer keeping the current syntax. Again, it's not strong and I'd love to hear any other good reasons.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: Florian Rivoal; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-text] combining transforms

Koji Ishii wrote:

> It turned out that there's another reason to prefer keeping the 
> current behavior.
> 
> EPUB 3 CSS Profile[1] defines that:
> > the EPUB 3 CSS Profile includes the unprefixed text-transform 
> > property from CSS Text Level 3 using semantics as defined in 
> > [CSS3Text] and syntax as defined in [CSS3Text-20110412]
> 
> So whether we like it or not, UAs that share their rendering engines 
> with EPUB reading systems and that are willing to support viewing EPUB 
> files on the web will need to support 20110412 version of the 
> syntax[2].

EPUB behavior is tied to early working drafts of CSS specs.  As with all CSS working drafts they are subject to change, including this property. 
This issue should be decided based on whether combining transforms would restrict future behavior or not and *not* on what EPUB has or has not included in their spec.  There is absolutely no obligation that the CSS WG support a specific syntax in a specific *working* draft!!

Regards,

John Daggett

Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 05:26:42 UTC