Re: Hyphenation (was Re: A suggested tag)

Jukka Korpela (jkorpela@cc.hut.fi)
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:19:36 +0300 (EET DST)


Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:19:36 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Hyphenation (was Re: A suggested tag)
In-Reply-To: <01IHUXW88Y42003VVO@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.970419131240.71958A-100000@leka.hut.fi>

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> 	W is too short, HYPHEN is too long, so SHY or HY seem the
> best choices.

Well I don't think the name is very essential but why not take the
WBR of Netscape? If N. itself supports it badly, that should be fixed,
but some authors might have got used to it, and there is nothing
really wrong with WBR standing for (possible) word break (point).
HY might do, too, although it is less logical; hyphenation is not 
really the fundamental issue but word breaking.

SHY would be _misleading_. 
 
> - - handling of &shy; and &#173;
> which is based on the clear, detailed specification for handling soft
> hyphens in RFC 2070 (i18n).

Which in turn is in definite contradiction with ISO 8859-1, as I
explained in a previous message, referring to
http://www.hut.fi/~jkorpela/shy.html for detailed explanation.

I'd say that ISO 8859 is _far_ more important to the Web than
RFC 2070.

Yucca