- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:56:25 -0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> 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. As in my previous mail, versioning is not my priority. Technologies using CSS already have one, so it's really a question whether web wants it or not. If the web does not want, I'm happy with that. We can just update the table to refer to UTR50 when it goes final. Regards, Koji
Received on Saturday, 30 June 2012 08:53:39 UTC