- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 01:42:46 +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>
> > Well, "some" may be true because not everyone reads specs. Could be > "many." > > But as I wrote in my previous mail, we could work on versioning scheme > > and define how to migrate old contents to new one with some transition > > period, if the WG agrees with it. > > This is something the WG may do between levels of a spec. We do not and > should not version between drafts. That is the responsibility of whoever > wants to implement them. > On a second read, strike that. The CSSWG should not be versioning or deprecating a Unicode feature. Deprecated features still require implementation work; depending on implementors supporting one or more deprecated variants of a feature at WD stage would be a significant red flag. The note in 5.1.1 that John referred to thankfully suggests that is not the goal. Moreover, as it also suggests that these properties are directly derived from other Unicode properties that UTR50 does define I agree with John that we should define the mapping we assume normatively. And we should not host our own version of this data.
Received on Saturday, 30 June 2012 01:43:20 UTC