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

Re: Republish CSS3 Text / CSS3 Writing Modes?

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>
Message-ID: <op.v7nryv0w4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:28:38 +0100, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>  

> 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  

>    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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:09 UTC