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

RE: Whitespace

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:18:08 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Justin Rogers <justrog@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <04F36FB4ED0F85459AA447F72711526F0140413B45CD@DF-GRTDANE-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>

Note that IE8 layout is being built exactly to standard so it does not (currently) consider U+000B whitespace.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:55 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Whitespace



For consistency in the Web platform I would like us to make the whitespace
definitions for HTML5 and CSS match. Right now, HTML5 defines the
following characters to be syntactic whitespace:

   U+0020 SPACE, U+0009 CHARACTER TABULATION (tab), U+000A LINE FEED (LF),
   U+000B LINE TABULATION, U+000C FORM FEED (FF), and U+000D CARRIAGE
   RETURN (CR)
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#space

CSS2.1 defines the following characters to be syntactic whitespace:

   "space" (U+0020), "tab" (U+0009), "line feed" (U+000A), "carriage
   return" (U+000D), and "form feed" (U+000C)

The only difference appears to be the inclusion of U+000B in the
definition for HTML5.

HTML5's definition has a couple of minor advantages: it seems to be
closers to what IE7 does (at least for HTML), and it allows spaces to be
defined as the range of characters from U+0009 to U+000D plus U+0020,
rather than having it be five separate codepoints, which may allow for
some subtle optimisations.

Would adding U+000B to the CSS white space definition be acceptable to the
CSSWG, or are there good reasons to exclude U+000B that should cause me to
remove it from the HTML5 definition?

Cheers,
--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 20:18:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:07 GMT