On 07/06/17 12:45, Henri Sivonen wrote:
It seems to me that this episode has revealed that the Unicode
Consortium doesn't have an objective way to deem one way of doing
things as clearly the best one, so it seems to me that there's a
better chance of Unicode toning down the language expresses a
preference to make it a lesser preference (by calling it something
lesser than "best practice" going forward) and it seems to me that
there wouldn't be Unicode-level agreement of elevating the old or the
new preference to a requirement on the Unicode level. The WHATWG spec
would continue to make the old Unicode preference required, so I think
it's an OK outcome for the requirement to live in the WHATWG spec and
Unicode preferring the same thing (i.e. reverting the change to the
preference) in weaker terms than so far. Letting it be this way
wouldn't invite objections from non-Web-oriented implementors who
implement something else that's currently within Unicode compliance
and who don't want to change any code.
I agree with Henri on the original issue.
I also agree that it’s probably easier to not also try to make this a
strong requirement. When you ask for two things at the same time it’s
easy for someone to respond to / argue about one and forget the other,
deliberately or not.
--
Simon Sapin
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
