- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:18:09 -0800
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > Tab, we have an existing spec in CR that already defines the unicode > range syntax. Not really. The definition of the unicode-range syntax has always been in CSS 2.1 Chapter 4 or CSS Syntax. CSS Fonts defines some additional validity rules over the core syntax. > I do not think it makes sense to either move it out of > the Fonts spec or reword it in the way you've done, especially when > what you describe is not what is currently implemented. Better to > fix existing weaknesses if they exist than to create a whole new > description that needs to be vetted again. > > I think we should narrow the necessary changes to "what about the > syntax needs to be reworded if the unicode-range token is removed?" Yes, I agree. What am I doing beyond that now? All the spec is doing is defining what sequences of tokens get interpreted into a <urange>, and marking some results from that as invalid <urange>s, matching what Fonts specifies. (If it's a good idea to make those invalid in @font-face/unicode-range, it's a good idea for them to be invalid anywhere that uses <urange>, so it should be part of the <urange> definition.) ~TJ
Received on Monday, 17 November 2014 18:18:59 UTC