Addison Phillips wrote: >>> 4.5. Character range: the unicode-range descriptor >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css-fonts-3-20130711/#unicode-range-desc >>> >>> "Valid Unicode codepoint values vary between 0 and 10FFFF >>> inclusive." Do we need to say something about characters that >>> cannot be used, such as surrogate codepoints? >>> >>> Perhaps what is meant is that the codepoint values cannot be >>> higher than 10FFFF or lower than 0. In this case, perhaps the spec >>> should say that the codepoint space (range) is between 0 and >>> 10FFFF, rather than give the impression that all values in that >>> space are acceptable. >> >> Hmm, unicode ranges are used to indicate *possible* coverage ranges >> for fonts. The actual range used in font matching is ultimately >> determined by the intersection of the unicode-range descriptor >> value with the actual character map of the font. There's no >> attempt to separate actual "valid" Unicode values from ones that >> are invalid. I don't think I see a need here to discuss the nitty >> gritty of surrogate handling. > > I don't think that's really the point though. We read this section > in the WG call this morning. The text you have got is a little > sloppy with the word "valid". The range of Unicode code points is, > indeed, "valid" between 0 and 0x10FFFF, but not all of those code > points are "valid" characters. We don't really want you to discuss > the nitty gritty of surrogates and non-character code points. But > the idea is that maybe you should say instead: "Unicode code points > range between 0 and 0x10FFFF inclusive" avoiding the problematic > word "valid" Hmmm. "Valid Unicode codepoint" seems fine to me, it's talking about the codepoint, not whether there's a character represented by that or not. But I'm not going to quibble, I've updated the spec to remove the term. Cheers, John DaggettReceived on Friday, 13 September 2013 04:47:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC