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

Re: FW: NoWrap property

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:09:15 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <641uj49l6m2gj6f6kc1tud98jm5scjm535@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* fantasai wrote:
>If the author wanted the entire unit to be non-breakable, then he
>could have wrapped the whole thing in <nowrap>. Since there is
>a break in the <nowrap>, the point between the two <nowrap> elements
>is outside the <nowrap>. A break opportunity there should therefore
>not be suppressed. Otherwise there is no way to express layouts that
>require grouping this text run and that text run but allowing a break
>between them.

That would seem to imply, if between two runs you normally do not wrap,
you cannot make it wrap. That seems odd, but even so it should be quite
possible to come up with some marker for a wrapping point, say,

  element { line-break-after: allow }
  ::after { content: break-opportunity }
  ...

I would expect, if what you say is correct, that such a feature would
be introduced regardless of how this issue is resolved. I see that with
your proposal authors have to change the markup to get the non-default
behavior, while with the above approach usually only the style sheet.

I would actually have thought you may be able to use various characters
like the word joiner or the zero width space, but of course those may
have undesireable effects on e.g. copy and paste operations, and there
are other strange effects in practise. E.g., x<zwsp>y is rendered as
two words in IE6, rendered as one word in Opera but word selection on
either word selects that word only, and in Firefox you have only one
word in both cases (where word rendering is determined by word-spacing).

Intuitively, and thereby ignoring the CSS 2.1 word-spacing definition,
I would have expected the IE6 behavior.

>Take "normally" to mean "if there was no markup and white-space for
>all content was normal".
>
>Take "between" as its normal English definition. I can't think of
>how that's ambiguous.

Well, elsewhere in this thread you suggest that wrapping at a space is
really the same as wrapping between the space--period. That is not all
that normal to me. I would better understand it if you said, e.g.,

  If there is a wrapping opportunity between <normal>x</normal> and an
  immediately adjacent <normal>y</normal> then there is also one between
  <nowrap>x</nowrap> and an immediately adjacent <nowrap>y</nowrap>.

I am not sure though this is what you had in mind, I read your version
more like <normal>xy</normal> with x and y stripped of their markup
which I have trouble wrapping my head around.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:09:51 GMT

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