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

RE: FW: NoWrap property

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:31:43 -0800
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C2F64B551D8664AAD94A28DAC37D0206B5068E727@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I was trying to understand the two principles from the previous messageā€¦ Both make sense, but why just using one of them would not be enough?

E.g. why did you decide that <nowrap> has to remove break opportunity after space but not after a dash (as in attached example)?

From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:13 PM
To: Alex Mogilevsky
Cc: fantasai; Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: NoWrap property

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com<mailto:alexmog@microsoft.com>> wrote:

That is one way to look at it.

Another is to say "text within <nowrap> loses its wrapping capabilities". That would greatly simplify boundary issues. It would make <nowrap>_space_</nowrap> behave as non-breaking space which may sometimes be surprising but logical and consistent.

These aren't mutually exclusive, see my previous message. In Gecko we have your preferred behaviour for spaces and fantasai's preferred behaviour for other characters.

Rob
--
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]


Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 21:32:28 GMT

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