- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:32:38 +0200
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, "Ambrose LI" <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Cc: "WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:18:49 +0200, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> This was previously a complex matrix[1] where there's even differences
>> between Simplified Chinese ('below right') and Traditional Chinese
>> ('above right'). Given that encoding this logic into a CSS value is a
>> pain, I think keeping the current initial value as it is is better. And
>> we can debate this at the default UA style sheet level if we want.
Fair enough, it can be done well enough at the default UA style sheet
indeed.
>> My personal opinion is that we probably shouldn't have this difference
>> in the default UA style sheet either. Chinese authors don't use emphasis
>> dots as much as Japanese authors, and I haven't seen a Chinese book with
>> emphasis dots for a while. On the other hand, you see quite a lot of
>> emphasis dots in Japanese manga.
>
> So from a practical point of view I hate to say it but Kenny is
> probably right. It’s already too late to fix the Chinese punctuation
> system on the software side.
Well, unless you are suggesting dropping support for 'below right' entirely
(and I don't think you are), adding it to the default style sheet for
simplified
Chinese isn't much work, and while most authors might not benefit much
from it,
it doesn't hurt either.
- Florian
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 20:28:28 UTC