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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] A report from a meeting w/Japanese publishing group

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:10:12 -0500
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297C75A@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> Koji Ishii wrote:
> > The Writing Modes module defines two things:
> > 1. The default orientation of each code point
> > 2. How authors can change its default orientation by applying styles
> > We’re trying to solve 2 nd issue in CSS Writing Modes, and 1 st issue
> > in Unicode.
> I agree this is the right approach.  However, as written, this is not what the current editor's
> draft defines, as noted previously it's using a combination of per-script definitions
> (Appendix B) and UTR50 for the common/inherited/unknown case.

Hmm...our spec is still going on and UTR#50 is still going on, so I'm hoping to resolve them in the end.

I can't speak for Elika but I'm feeling some uncertainness of UTR#50 process, as some of our feedbacks such as orientation for Egyptian and Yi[1] were not taken seriously and were simply ignored in the 2nd draft.

I don't know what we should do if UTR#50 didn't incorporate our feedbacks and defined something we believe incorrect. We have two more weeks until UTR#50 feedback deadline and I'm willing to do my best to make our feedbacks incorporated. If it turned out to be the case, we need to discuss. I hope not, and it's not too late to start discussion after that, right?

[1] http://www.unicode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=222

Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 15:13:07 UTC

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