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



On 9/26/13 8:52 AM, "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>
>I do not see any values to prohibit Unicode-compliant implementations and
>ignore people who wants it, especially when some people specifically
>asked for it, just because other people does not think the work isn't
>worth to do. Whether it's worth or not varies by people and situations
>around him/her.

FWIW I do not think the issue is whether someone asked for it; I think the
question was *why* they asked for it. Can you ask them or point them to
this mailing list? That'd be useful feedback, I think; implementor
requests are not all inherently reasonable and it's quite possible they're
wrong, in which case we could all save ourselves some work. Alternatively
their request is based on sound data the production of which could help us
resolve this issue and clarify the spec accordingly.

Bottom line: given two contradictory pieces of feedback, it'd help the WG
if you provided all the data it needs.

As a matter of principle I also strongly agree that optional behavior is
something we should avoid specifying in CSS or the web platform.

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 23:58:41 UTC