<html><head></head><body><span class="viv-signature"></span>On Tuesday, 23
August 2022, 08:51:26 (-04:00), Asmus Freytag via Unicode
wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF
2px solid; padding-left: 1ex">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><span style="font-family: Candara;">For
compatibility with older parsers, all
@missing directives are wrapped in comments.</span></div>
<p><font face="Candara"></font></p></blockquote><div><br></div>If
@missing directives are meaningful but ignored by older parsers, doesn't
that result in incorrect values? Is that preferable to the parser simply
failing on a new syntax?<div><br></div><div>Would it only give incorrect
values to unassigned code points?<br><div><br><blockquote style="margin: 0
0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex"><p><font
face="Candara">For some properties, such as derived bidi
class, the full scheme will be present in 15.0, but vertical
orientation missed the cutoff, so that will be taken care of in
the next version(s).</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Where multiple @missing lines are used, you
will no longer see explicit listing of default values for
reserved code points.</font></p></blockquote><div><br></div>Then,
from a parsing perspective, Vertical_Orientation is not currently complex
(it has one default and all other values are explicit) but it will be
complex (multiple defaults) in the next version.<span
class="viv-signature-below"></span></div></div></body></html>