W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2001

Re: first-word pseudo-element

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:40:01 -0700
To: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
CC: "Peter S. Linss" <peter@linss.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1221896937-623972868@psdbay.com>
From: glazman@netscape.com (Daniel Glazman)
Subject: Re: first-word pseudo-element
Date: Fri, May 18, 2001, 7:53 AM

> Tantek Celik wrote:
>
>>> All text/visual properties should apply to all languages and writing system.
>>
>> I strongly disagree.
>>
>> It is reasonable to expect that different languages and writing systems will
>> have different layout/typographic effects in common usage (yes, even before
>> the web).
>>
>> Therefore, it is far more useful to pursue properties even if they only
>> apply to a few languages, than to limit properties to some lowest common
>> denominator across hundreds of languages.
>>
>> 'word-spacing' may only apply to some languages, just as 'ruby' layout may
>> only apply to some languages.  There are other examples of properties which
>> only make sense in a few languages (which happen to be non-Latin) in the
>> recent CSS3 Text Module.
>>
>> We should seek to represent the individual stylistic/typographical richness
>> of different languages and writing systems rather than attempting to force
>> them all to fit one mold.
>
> Are you saying that I should not be able to use a ruby box model with
> latin characters just because I like the effect it brings ? Or that I
> should not use grid layout because it is mainly made for ideographic
> writing systems ?
>
> Let's make features that everybody can use, as core feature of his own
> language/writing system, or as a nice rendering extension coming from
> other cultures.
>
> My .02 euros...
>
> </Daniel>

I agree that "features that everybody can use" are a good goal.

The difference is that I don't see that as a requirement, and not only that,
my point is that sometimes trying to make a feature "universal" as such may
only end up dragging it down to the lowest common denominator among
languages/writing systems.  Much better to have multiple features if
necessary, and preserve the fidelity of language specific stylistic
mechanisms.  Unicode provides examples of this kind of design goal.

Tantek

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you validated your CSS today?       http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 18:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT