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

RE: leaving Tr fallback undefined

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 13:43:55 -0400
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E8F3EC44D57@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> 
> >From the minutes of the CSSWG Telcon on 16 Oct 2013 [1]:
> 
> > fantasai: On the topic of writing modes, glazou you asked what was
> >           holding it up.
> > fantasai: It's a minor detail so we can make it undefined.
> > fantasai: The spec has it undefined and the argument is for making it
> >           not undefined.
> > glazou:   There's a disagreement on what to do and if everyone agrees on
> >           leaving it undefined for now we can move to LC.
> > glazou:   If they don't and it takes another month for a solution, we
> >           can't for to LC.
> > glazou:   So my question was can we leave it undefined.

I'm fine to leave it undefined.


> I don't think there's really "undefined" behavior here, we're arguing whether to allow
> optional fallback.  Optional behavior is kind of sucky for authors but I think I'm more
> concerned that Koji feels that while the Writing Modes spec makes it optional, in his view
> UTR50 *requires* it [2]:

I have never tried to say that. I re-read [2] but can't understand which parts indicates so, but if so, that's my English problem. Apologies.

What I've been asking for is to allow implementers to choose another method.

In this options:

> > 1. SHOULD|MUST render the fallback rotated sideways.
> > 2. MUST render the fallback upright.
> > 3. MAY render the fallback upright, or MAY render rotated sideways.

I support #1 with SHOULD, or #3. Neither requires one behavior if I understand correctly...do I?


> > UTR50 says #1:
> > # Tr: Same as Tu except that, as a fallback, the # character can be
> > displayed with the code chart # glyph rotated 90 degrees clockwise.
> 
> Nothing in the wording of UTR50 implies to me option (1), namely that this fallback is
> *required*, and discussions with other Unicode UTC members suggests that it's not a
> commonly held opinion.

I agree. UTR50 says this, but does not require at all. I just want it as an option for implementers because some people wants it, and I agree with what Glenn said: it would be premature to mandate a single approach[3].


> I'm not comfortable with leaving this optional if the combination of Writing Modes plus
> UTR50 effectively makes this fallback required for all user agents.  I think we need to
> resolve this before publishing LC.

So, leaving it undefined resolves your concern, doesn't it?


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0460.html

> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0366.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Oct/0372.html


/koji

Received on Sunday, 20 October 2013 17:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC