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.


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