- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:04:22 +0000
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Following up on this it seems I'm misunderstanding the problem i.e. we're not really standardizing what one particular engine is doing at the moment - good! - but we are defining a solution so as to prevent some early adopters from depending on this engine. Said solution derives from work in progress at Unicode; moreover, some content creators expect that whatever content they produce that conforms to our draft will be stable i.e. future UTR50 implementations will not conflict with content. If so, that still seems dangerous for all the same reasons. I do not think it is wise to have our own UTR50 fork, however temporarily that may be; *especially* if we know some publishers mean to treat our *draft* and the UTR50 snapshot contained therein as a standard. This sounds confusing, if not misleading. I would not want us to support such an expectation without explicit agreement from our Unicode partners. And if we have such agreement then I really don't understand why we need our own copy...?
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 20:04:56 UTC