W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2002

Re: WD-css3-text-20021024 substantive comments

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:05:39 +0000 (GMT)
To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212162038130.17087-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, fantasai wrote:
> 
> Agreed. An implementation may internally convert all newlines
> to linefeeds if it chooses to, but there's no reason for CSS
> to mandate this.

Actually it's not a may, it's a must. Both XML and SGML normalise newlines
to single U+000A characters. So in CSS, that's the newline character.

Allowing multiple newline characters or requiring CSS to do line
normalisation also introduces massive complications when it comes to the
'content' property. (e.g. '\D' should _not_ create a line-feed, one new
line character is enough thanks.)


> BTW, using "newline" instead of "linefeed" for property names
> would be more inclusive, and it's not any more esoteric.

any mention of these characters should really be qualifed by a
unicode codepoint, namely U+000A.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 16:05:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:18 GMT