Last Comment Bug 287166 - Georgian list numbering is wrong
: Georgian list numbering is wrong
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
[patch]
: css2
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: CSS Parsing and Computation (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: P1 normal (vote)
: mozilla1.8beta2
Assigned To: David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10
: Hixie (not reading bugmail)
: Jet Villegas (:jet)
Mentors:
http://dbaron.org/css/test/2005/georg...
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-03-21 21:37 PST by David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10
Modified: 2005-03-22 17:56 PST (History)
4 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments
patch (1.84 KB, patch)
2005-03-21 21:41 PST, David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10
jshin1987: review+
bzbarsky: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Patch2 (1.61 KB, patch)
2005-03-22 15:42 PST, Gia Shervashidze
dbaron: review+
dbaron: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
testcase (1.85 KB, text/html; charset=UTF-8)
2005-03-22 16:13 PST, David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10
no flags Details

Description David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-21 21:37:37 PST
Our Georgian list numbering is wrong.  See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2005JanMar/0157
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2005JanMar/0158

Steps to reproduce:
 1. load http://dbaron.org/css/test/2005/georgian-lists

Actual results: first list matches, second one doesn't
Expected results: second list matches, first one doesn't

I'm cc:ing the two people who have volunteered for Georgian localization.  I'd
appreciate if they could confirm that our current behavior is incorrect and that
we should make this change.
Comment 1 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-21 21:41:23 PST
Created attachment 178211 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Comment 2 Jungshik Shin 2005-03-22 03:15:25 PST
Comment on attachment 178211 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

r=jshin
Comment 3 Aiet Kolkhi 2005-03-22 07:14:43 PST
I confirm. The Georgian numbering should indeed be lowercase.

Georgian uppercase range in Unicode is mainly resevred for old Georgisn script, 
that was used centuries ago.
Comment 4 Boris Zbarsky [:bz] (still a bit busy) 2005-03-22 13:42:28 PST
Comment on attachment 178211 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

sr=bzbarsky
Comment 5 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 15:28:11 PST
Fix checked in to trunk, 2005-03-22 15:27 -0800.
Comment 6 Gia Shervashidze 2005-03-22 15:39:28 PST
There is no lowercase/uppercase in Georgian at all, but different Alphabets.

Character-Number correspondence scheme for Georgian is based on old Asomtavruli.
 [Unfortunately] contemporary 10E3 is missed - see http://www.gia.ge/Alphabets.html
So, sequences from 10B3(400) in source and correspondingly in patch aren't valid.
Agree with John Cowan regarding Mkhedruli - that was usual practice for medieval
Georgian script (mainly for dates).  Patch applied.

P.S. For new localization voluteer - if there are no remarks/corrections NO
confirmations needed nor for earlier, nor for this, nor for my future patches in
any lists!
Comment 7 Gia Shervashidze 2005-03-22 15:42:18 PST
Created attachment 178300 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch2
Comment 8 Gia Shervashidze 2005-03-22 15:54:25 PST
Sorry...
Comment 9 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 15:58:37 PST
According to the URL in comment 6, 50 and 60 are also backwards.  Should that be
corrected as well?
Comment 10 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 16:07:44 PST
Actually, that URL disagrees about 50 and 60 between the characters given and
the Hex values given.
Comment 11 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 16:12:53 PST
So, I think the following errors exist:
 * http://www.gia.ge/Alphabets.html swaps the Hex values for 50 and 60 but gets
the characters correct (I'm guessing it's that way because of the Obsolete
notation and because it's a lot easier to check the characters if you know the
language)
 * Opera gets 400 wrong (uses U+10E3 instead of U+10F3) but otherwise agrees
with http://www.gia.ge/Alphabets.html

Could you (and others?) just confirm that those two errors are as-stated (which
is what your patch does, I think) and not the other way around?
Comment 12 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 16:13:38 PST
Created attachment 178306 [details]
testcase
Comment 13 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 16:28:11 PST
I committed your patch, but I'd still appreciate answers to the questions in
comment 11 so that we can improve css3-lists.
Comment 14 Gia Shervashidze 2005-03-22 16:42:22 PST
Right, HEX values missed between 50 & 60.  i check table.
U+10E3 instead of U+10F3 is "free interpretation" by Opera, but it could accepted.
Patch must be OK (You can use U+10E3 instead of U+10F3 for full compatibility
with Opera)
As i mentioned initial character-number correspondence was wrong in source - so
Your new attachment must based on right sequence of old Georgian letters.
Comment 15 Aiet Kolkhi 2005-03-22 16:54:14 PST
(In reply to comment #6)
> P.S. For new localization voluteer - if there are no remarks/corrections NO
> confirmations needed nor for earlier, nor for this, nor for my future patches
> in any lists!

The issue Reporter asked for confirmation.

Comment 16 David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-10 2005-03-22 17:05:10 PST
Do any of the others here have opinions on which character is better to use for
400?  Compatibility with Opera is probably only a minor concern if we should
worry about it at all.
Comment 17 Gia Shervashidze 2005-03-22 17:23:30 PST
(In reply to comment #15)
> nor for earlier, nor for this, nor for !!!my!!! future patches in any lists!
Comment 18 Aiet Kolkhi 2005-03-22 17:56:22 PST
I think we should leave it the correct way and I will have the issue reported 
and corrected to Opera Software.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.