W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [css-syntax][css-fonts] Wrapping up the <unicode-range> thing

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:37:13 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <558DD419.7020705@exyr.org>
On 22/06/15 17:26, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> So I think there are two ways we can handle this:
> 1. Abandon the project, restore <unicode-range-token>, and live with
> the fact that we have a weird almost-useless token that will
> occasionally cause problems for authors in unrelated contexts.  (We
> can't even really do something like make Selectors treat unicode-range
> specially, because it can cut selectors in pieces - "u+area" parses as
> a urange(a) ident(rea)!)

Not sure if this is a good idea, but we *could* handle that in the 
Selectors grammar as well. u+a/**/rea would also parse, which we might 
not want, but it’s much harder for authors to accidentally do that than u+a.

> 2. Produce a new, reliable syntax for unicode ranges, and keep around
> the old version for back-compat, with a warning that some values won't
> parse correctly.  The most obvious fix is to just replace the + with a
> -, like "U-0404", "U-400-600", or "U-4??".  This makes the entire
> thing an ident, which keeps around the characters properly (or an
> ident followed by some ? delims, which is also fine).

`unicode-range: U+04e4` works today in multiple browsers. Breaking this 
seems worse than the u+a selector not working. (Introducing an 
alternative unicode-range syntax will not help existing unmaintained 

Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 22:37:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC