On 05/23/2014 10:11 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: > Thanks. There is a slightly stronger message in the second sentence > of the auto section, but I'd still prefer to see the text of the > example changed to make it clearer that the universal compromise is > not really a *useful* compromise, and that UAs should (rather than > 'could') apply more accurate typographic support where the > language/script is known. I kinda prefer to not use RFC2119 terminology in non-normative sections like examples. There is a normative SHOULD in the definition, though. I added some context, so it now reads: # Since justification rules vary by writing system and language, # UAs should, where possible, use a justification algorithm # appropriate to the text. Let me know if that's good. ~fantasaiReceived on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 17:36:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:44 UTC