- From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:06:31 +1000
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:18:47AM -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#characters says: > > All CSS syntax is case-insensitive within the ASCII range (i.e., [a-z] and > > [A-Z] are equivalent), except for parts that are not under the control of > > CSS. > > > > According to this rule in CSS2.1, I believe all counter style names, instead > > of only the predefineds, should be case-insensitive and ASCII lower-cased on > > parse. > > No, all other names are author-defined, and thus case-sensitive. > > > Maybe there is no need to lower-case them. Just making all names > > case-insensitive is sufficient. > > No, we *never* make author-defined names case-insensitive, because > "case-insensitive" gets complicated once Unicode comes into play (and > drags along "normalized" and other notions of equivalency). To avoid > all of that, we just mandate case-sensitivity, which means literal > codepoint comparisons. I don't understand this last paragraph. In what way does honouring the quoted sentence of syndata.html get complicated once Unicode comes into play, and how does case-sensitivity avoid normalization issues of whether decomposed and precomposed mean the same thing? pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 22:07:07 UTC