Re: [css-fonts-3] i18n-ISSUE-295: U+ in unicode-range descriptor

--On Friday, September 13, 2013 05:57 -0700 John Daggett
<jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:

> The existing unicode range syntax has been implemented in CSS
> since 2.1 as part of the tokenizer.  And both Webkit and IE
> support the @font-face rule unicode-range descriptor syntax
> defined in the current spec.  So at this point, regardless of
> the subtle advantages of one syntax versus another, the point
> is moot I think. Unless we feel there is a strong reason to
> break existing implementations, we need to live we the current
> syntax.

I don't think anyone has suggested changing the syntax.  At
least I haven't.  The issue, at least IMO, is _only_ the
language and notation used to talk about it.    Here, I think
that means sticking with "U+" instead of raw hex for several
reasons (in other words, I think I'm agreeing with you).  In
another case, it means avoiding words like "valid" unless you
are willing to go to the effort to define exactly what you mean.
And, in the "font" case, it means pinning down "available" to
what you really mean.

In no case do any of these suggested changes require a change in
any existing conforming and competent implementation.  

I'm sorry it is late.  I'm even more sorry that it took looking
at other comments and having a "right problem, maybe not the
right fix" reaction to some of them.  I don't think it is in the
best interests of W3C or the web to put a spec out there that
will mislead some and/or be interpreted in different ways by
different people.  I felt it was desirable to raise the issues.
If you conclude that they are important enough relative to other
considerations (including the schedule), I can and will accept
that even if I question its long-term wisdom.

   john

Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 15:01:14 UTC