W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [CSS3 Text] punctuation-trim

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:04:02 +1300
Message-ID: <45C6BAC2.2040409@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>

MURAKAMI Shinyu wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>>   1) Should the 'start' and 'end' values apply to inlines or to blocks?
> 
> It may not be necessary to specify on inlines, but I think they should
> be able to apply to inlines for consistency because this functionality
> is similar to text-autospace property and other text spacing properties
> and they should have same scope.

Ok, I've marked punctuation-trim as applying to all elements.

> ...
> The following is a revised version of this rule, more close to Japanese
> standard (JIS X 4051).
>  ...

Ok, I've updated the definitions accordingly.

>>   3) In your proposal there are some language-based differences in whether
>>      ・:;。.、, are considered middle dot punctuations, closing punctuations,
>>      or neither. Is this a linguistic difference, or is it a reflection of
>>      how the punctuation is typically drawn (centered vs. to one side)?
>>      The reason I ask is because I have, for example, a simplified Chinese
>>      textbook where the periods and commas are drawn centered -- in this
>>      case, I'm guessing one wouldn't want them to be trimmed as closing
>>      punctuation.
> 
> It is a reflection of how the punctuation is typically drawn (centered
> vs. to one side), since I am not well versed in Chinese and Korean
> punctuations. I did not know there was such case (simplified Chinese
> with traditional Chinese punctuation?)

IIRC, 标点符号用法 specifies placement as in Japanese rather than centered,
but I suspect the standards-compliance of Chinese fonts may not be at the
same level as for Japanese.

> The punctuation list in my proposal was not complete. The following is a
> revised version. 
> 
>       (Japanese)
>         Fullwidth opening punctuations:   「『(‘“〔[{〈《【〝〖〘〚⦅«
>         Fullwidth closing punctuations:    」』)’”〕]}〉》】〟〗〙〛⦆»。.、,
>         Fullwidth middle dot punctuations: ・

I noticed you left out the colon and semicolon this time. Was that intentional?
(Also, I assume the character between the filled and open closing brackets is
the double prime? It looks like kanji on my screen for some reason...)

>       (Korean)
>         Fullwidth opening punctuations:    「『([{〈《【
>         Fullwidth closing punctuations:    」』)]}〉》】.,
>         Fullwidth middle dot punctuations:  :;
>       (Simplified Chinese)
>         Fullwidth opening punctuations:    「『(‘“〔[{〈《【〖
>         Fullwidth closing punctuations:    」』)’”〕]}〉》】〗。.、,:;
>         Fullwidth middle dot punctuations:  ·
>       (Traditional Chinese)
>         Fullwidth opening punctuations:    「『(‘“〔[{〈《【〝
>         Fullwidth closing punctuations:    」』)’”〕]}〉》】〞
>         Fullwidth middle dot punctuations:  ‧:;。.、,
> 
> The above Japanese list is based on JIS X 4051, and others are based on 
> Word 2007's each primary editing language setting. (I want someone to
> check this.)

Judging from 标点符号用法, the Simplified Chinese list makes sense. (It
specifies the placement of periods, commas, and colons to the bottom left
of the glyph box.) I don't know of a similar resource for Traditional
Chinese, however, so I can't check that. (Do any i18n guys/gals reading
this have a pointer for Hant punctuation conventions?)

I'll ask Steve (Adobe) and Paul (MS) to check on this as well.

> When punctuations typically only used for one language appear in another
> language text, punctuation trimming is not expected.

Given that in web pages the language is often unmarked, and just generally
to make mixed-language documents format more consistently, I think punctuation
specific to one of these languages should appear in the corresponding list
for the other languages as well. Do you feel that that would cause any
significant problems?

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 05:04:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:09 GMT