- From: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:27:05 -0400
- To: CSS WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
Hi. Posting this for the file -- I have no further objections to this issue being closed. I do think it would be advantageous to consider the small technical/editorial issue mentioned under (i) below if it has not been considered, but do not consider it very important. > https://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/337 Two (contradictory) answers: (1) I'm pretty sure that I understood the CSS text when I read it in January. Given the amount of trouble being agnostic on the line-end convention has caused, I found the text profoundly unsatisfying then and find it profoundly unsatisfying now. (2) I am now clear that the CSS group has no intention of changing the present situation and apparently likes it that way. While I will continue to disagree, I am satisfied that the text is adequately clear about that position. Two observations (not further complaints or justification for leaving this open unless others agree): (i) Unless there is general consensus that Unicode's attempt to introduce an unambiguous Line Separator in form of U+2028 has been a complete failure, I suppose the CSS document would be better off either including it as an additional alternative (to "... document languageādefined segment break, CRLF sequence (U+000D U+000A), carriage return (U+000D), and line feed (U+000A)...") or mentioning why it is not so included. (ii) I believe that the Unicode Standard discussion of "NLF" represents a better approach than the indifference ("does not define...") expressed in the CSS spec. I.e., one should be permissive in what is accepted but should canonicalize all of them to a single preferred form. But that obviously isn't the way the spec if going. john
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 14:36:16 UTC