W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13098] Clarify whether <wbr> has the same effect as the zero-width space character

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 22:57:03 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qcmdz-0004zD-Q4@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13098

--- Comment #7 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-07-01 22:57:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)

W.r.t. "so that table don't stretch, but don't want invisible characters":  are
you certain that it is a <wbr> you need? Personally, in most cases, I would
rather like to have a imaginary <shy> element. 

In other words: I don't feel that you justify <wbr> very well. It sounds more
like a "we have it, so now we must defend it".

Because, in most cases, when a word is broken up, like that, then I would want
a hyphen to be inserted, so that the reader can see that it is one word and not
several words. (In English you use far less compound words - so perhaps it is
easier for users for the English language  to be satisfied with the effect of
<wbr>.)

So, while I understand the beneficial side-effects of <wbr>, <wbr> is far from
ideal when it comes to its primary effect. 

Hyphenation can be done via the hyphen-minus character, the soft-hyphen
character or via hyphenation dictionaries. I imagine that a <shy> would have
become something inbetween: like &shy; it would overule the hyphenation
dictionary (if any). But like a hyphenation dictiionary, it would not/should
not leave invisible traces in the text that would be copied.

I feel that the case for <wbr> in the first place was easier to defend if we
had a <shy> element. So perhaps you could open a bug for that? As is, <wbr>
will be used also when it is not at all very approriate.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 22:57:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:13 UTC