RE: [css3-writing-modes] Re-Summary of Tr in UTR#50 and text-orientation discussions

> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> 
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
> > Seems to me that a measure of "how bad" and "how probable" the
> > occurrences of such "undefined" behavior are in realistic scenarios
> > should figure into the discussion. John points out correctly that
> > fallbacks do have various kinds of costs in this instance, so one
> > would like to see them at the minimum offset, if not dwarfed by the
> > expected benefits.
> 
> Exactly!

As Makoto pointed out in another branch of this thread, we're looping here.

1. UTR50 says method A.
2. John thinks it costs high, method B costs much less with minimal-to-no impacts.
3. A group thinks the cost isn't high, and the benefit wins over the cost.
4. Another group thinks method B costs more than A due to their architectural design.
5. In response to #3 and #4, the discussion goes back to #2.

The costs vary by their designs, and the benefits vary by their businesses and markets, so it makes sense to me that different people says differently on cost-benefit balances.

I hope we're smart enough not to require voting to break this infinite loop, but I can't find how.

Any advices?

/koji

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:23:31 UTC