RE: [css3-writing-modes] vertical orientation and UTR50

Sorry for the late reply, I'm mostly out this week and tend to be late.

It looks like discussion is a little diverged, but allow me to back to Sylvain's original proposal:

> 1. Refer to UTR50 now; specifically, do not refer to your own hosted copy
> of the UTR50 data on w3.org

After re-reviewing where we're, I'm all good with this proposal.

> 2. Define the mapping of MVOsimple and SVOsimple in terms of MVO and SVO
> normatively (it currently is in a note).

This one turned out to have one issue; the current text has "scripts like Mongolian," which looks ambiguous to me to make it normative. I'd like it be very specific so that everyone can get the same result, and I think "like Mongolian" isn't enough for the purpose. I think the HO property serves the best for that purpose. If there were any objections to do so, please let me know.

> So yes, you could say the intent here is to *not* put ourselves in EPUB's position
> vis-a-vis Unicode. We do not want to depend on a specific version of UTR50, or of its
> data. Does that make sense?

Yes, thank you for the detailed explanations and for Glenn helping me a lot behind the scenes.

It's irrelevant now I guess but I'd like to make just one thing very clear for the honor of fantasai and me; neither fantasai nor I have any intention to diverge from Unicode. As I wrote, what we put in the ED is from draft #5 and only changes that were discussed with UTC folks. It's not our table. It's not WebKit table. It has no our speculations. It's not any several different opinions from Japan. It is just a snapshot, and also as stated in the spec, we were to follow UTR#50 as it is updated, so we didn't have any intention to diverge.

The situation was a little different at Hamburg, when UTR#50 was draft #4, but Eric, fantasai, Lanrentiau, and Dwayne made remarkable progress since then, and we had resolved most of critical issues for East Asian scripts. All these resolutions are minuted and expected to be put into the next draft, so there's not much differences between snapshotting and referring once the next draft is out. So, back to the top of this mail, I'm all good with Sylvain's proposal. I was neglecting to re-review our strategy after the situation was changed, and thank you for reminding that to us.


Regards,
Koji

Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 15:23:29 UTC