- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:41:09 +0100
- To: w3c-css-wg@w3.org, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:28:38 +0100, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net> wrote: > I've made the CSS3 Text split and updated Writing Modes to point to > UTR50. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/ We had a resolution that: "full-size-kana may be replaced by a generic @text-transform mechanism" should be marked as an issue. It's been added, but my understanding at the time was that this would replace that: "A future level of CSS may introduce the ability to create custom mapping tables for less common text transforms, such as by ‘@text-transform’ rule similar to ‘@counter-style’ from [CSS3LIST]." However, that is still in there as well. One of the goal of the new sentence was to avoid saying "A future level of CSS", because while @text-transform may indeed end up in level 4, we haven't resolved on that and may still want to try getting it into level 3. Here is a proposal for a condensing both sentences into one. ISSUE: "The ability to create custom mapping tables for less common text transforms, such as by an ‘@text-transform’ rule similar to ‘@counter-style’ from [CSS3LIST] may be introduced, and this mechanism may be used to replace full-size-kana. " I think this is is better, because it says what we've agreed on, without taking position on what we haven't agreed on yet. Other than this, I am fine with what has made its way to level 3. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css4-text/ Is this meant to be the same as level 3, plus the bits that were removed? I haven't checked everything, but at least the issues about @text-transform are marked differently in level 3 and 4. Once the common bits are checked to be in sync, I am fine with level 4 as well. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/ I haven't reviewed this in detail, but I don't think that there is any new controversial content added. There are a number of unresolved issues, but that's not new, so for the sake of the bits that have been improved, I agree with publishing. - Florian
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 10:41:41 UTC