Re: [CSS Counter Styles] Tamil (was: Minutes Santa Clara F2F 2014-10-28 Part III: Text, Selections, Counter Styles)

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2015 10:15 AM, "Jonathan Kew" <> wrote:
>> On 2/1/15 14:53, Dael Jackson wrote:
>>>    TabAtkins: One issue was about a handful of styles that browsers
>>>               have implemented but weren't in the draft since we cut
>>>               it down. I want to add the ones with high
>>>               interoperability.
>>>    TabAtkins: About 20 styles are implemented since they are
>>>               dependable for authors.
>>>    TabAtkins: The ones that aren't clear is the Tamil style, which is
>>>               only Firefox and this list:
>>>    <TabAtkins> afar, oromo, sidama, tigre
>> [snip]
>>>    RESOLVED: Add to Counter Styles the additional styles supported by
>>>              2+ browsers (per r12a's email), do not add the styles
>>>              supported by only one browser.
>> AIUI, this implies that Tamil will be excluded from the predefined styles,
>> as it is currently supported only by Firefox.
>> I believe this would be a very unfortunate situation. Tamil is one of the
>> nine basic scripts of India (see [1], for example):
>>   Bengali
>>   Devanagari
>>   Gujarati
>>   Gurmukhi
>>   Kannada
>>   Malayalam
>>   Oriya [Odia]
>>   Tamil
>>   Telugu
>> These are the Indic-family scripts used (along with Latin script, for
>> English, and the Perso-Arabic script for Urdu and Sindhi) to write the
>> official state languages of India, and form a clear, well-understood set
>> that are expected to be treated on an equal footing.
>> To provide predefined counter styles for eight of these, and exclude the
>> ninth, will appear arbitrary and capricious; will be confusing to authors;
>> and may even lead to accusations of discrimination against one of India's
>> major linguistic communities.
>> Please reconsider the status of Tamil. The nine major Indian scripts
>> should be supported as a set of equals, not divided into what will appear to
>> be first- and second-class citizens.
> Our decision to leave Tamil out was based on a simple impl-based criteria. I
> was not aware that we had included the other 8 major Indian languages. The
> hole is probably very obvious for Indian-language speakers, and
> unfortunately easy to misinterpret. I agree that we should include Tamil
> despite it having only one current implementation.

The WG agreed with your argument, and I've now added Tamil to the list
of predefined styles in the spec.


Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 21:31:16 UTC