W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css3-writing-modes] inconsistent handling of 'Tr' codepoints in 'text-orientation'

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:13:19 -0700
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE6F5A0D.D391%galineau@adobe.com>

On 9/30/13 4:20 PM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

>> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
>> I think I've lost count of how many times you've been asked to provide
>>more information
>> about those increasingly mysterious implementors and ignored the
>>question. If you still
>> cannot back up your claim with useful information about these
>>individuals and their
>> rationale then I think this alleged feedback should be considered null
>>until such time as
>> further information emerges.
>Didn't I say noting individual name is not allowed at UTC, and therefore
>I cannot do that?
>If you really want to discuss Unicode issues, the only way to do it
>properly is to go to Unicode ML. Why don't you want to do it?

The name/affiliation could be interesting but what has specifically been
requested is a *rationale* from these implementors i.e. why do *they*
think this fallback behavior is necessary? I'm pretty sure we know what
*you* think by now, but it would also be helpful to know why *they* think
this matters. Is there any conceivable reason those rationales could not
be shared here once stripped of any identifying information? (If Unicode
ML rules do not allow even this then I cannot see what my joining the
Unicode ML would accomplish since I wouldn't be able to share my new
knowledge anymore than you can…)

As the editor of the spec, the person who has established contact with
these individuals and someone who already is involved to the Unicode ML,
you are in the best position to gather these rationales and relay them
here in a timely manner. There is no reasonable benefit to expect from
having me doing it instead. (Unless we wanted to waste time…)

Overall, I'm just trying to point out to you, the editor, that this
information would help you make some progress. If you can't or won't get
it then things may take much longer. That's too bad.

>> Given the explicit lack of agreement that Unicode compliance is an
>>issue I do not quite see
>> how this could *possibly* be the point of discussion???
>> Or is 'Unicode compliance' the last-ditch argument to force your
>>preferred solution in the
>> absence of any actual implementor feedback?
>Who asked for it, and whether a spec is Unicode compliant or not, are two
>different issues. Regardless of who asked for it, if we remove the
>option, CSS will be incompliant.
>I think John is in agreement on this point; he's not agreeing with the
>importance of Unicode compliance because it's informative, and the
>definition is not good, if I understand correctly. It's first time in
>this discussion that someone is not agree on that point. What makes you
>think that way?

John said: "In short, I see no "compliance" issue here."

When people say they see *no compliance issue* with something, that
usually implies they would not agree with people who believe compliance to
be the issue? But anyway.

Later on: "[...] it would be helpful at this point to have more
information about the implementors who feel it's important to have complex
fallback for fonts that lack vertical alternates for 'Tr' codepoints. I
don't see much value in arguing about Unicode compliance or the fine
points of which codepoints are classified which way in UTR50."

+1 to this. I have no interest in arguing about Unicode compliance at this
point. I hope you are able to find a way to gather this feedback. Thank


Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 00:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:35 UTC