W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2008

Re: FW: NoWrap property

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:35:42 +0000
Message-ID: <493AC5FE.10704@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>



Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:

>> Odd, I would have thought exactly the opposite.  If
>> there are two contiguous nowrap regions, then the
>> probability that one will end up with an ill-formatted
>> document is far greater if wrapping is prohibited
>> between them than if it is allowed.
> 
> Not wrapping may result in visually unpleasant rendering, such as one
> that requires horizontal scrolling, but wrapping may result in a ren-
> dering that is semantically different than what was intended. That is
> worse ill-formatting in my opinion.

Agreed.  But surely it is the semantics that we are
discussing ?  If there is not (yet) consensus as to
whether two contiguous nospan regions should permit
wrapping at their juncture, then the semantics are
ill-defined.  Therefore what was intended is moot.

>> In general, HTML
>> is a "wrappy" language, and I would expect it to wrap
>> (if it needs to) wherever wrapping is not explicitly
>> precluded, rather than the converse (which is to say,
>> wrapping only where it is explicitly permitted).
> 
> Using white-space:nowrap is pretty explicit, is it not?

Yes, and it applies solely to the region to which it
applies, not to the juncture (which may well be
a singularity) between that region and any following
or preceding region.  I have to say, I really cannot
see why anyone believes its scope /should/ extend
beyond the region to which it applies.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 18:36:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT