W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

[css3-text] Discussion for punctuation-trim

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:48:59 -0500
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AAF00979B@MAILR001.mail.lan>
I had discussion on punctuation-trim with Murakami-san and fantasai, sending them to the ML for the record and for anyone else to jump in.

-----Original Message-----
From: Koji Ishii 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:12 AM
To: MURAKAMI Shinyu
Cc: fantasai (fantasai@inkedblade.net)
Subject: punctuation-trim

Murakami-san,

I think we need to finalize how to incorporate Kida-san's requests. I should have done this earlier and I'm sorry about that.

You might have already knew, currently Kida-san's requests differ from what are written in the spec in:
* Wants to set/reset "start" separately without touching other settings
* Wants to use "allow-end" as initial value, and user can't change it (at least for now)
* Wants to use "adjacent" as initial value, and user can't change it (at least for now)

So the proposal would be:
punctuation-trim-start: none | start -- none as initial
punctuation-trim-end: none | end | allow-end -- allow-end as initial
punctuation-trim-adjacent: none | adjacent -- adjacent as initial punctuation-trim shortcut for the above three

or create three properties without shortcut:
punctuation-trim-start: none | force -- none as initial
punctuation-trim-end: none | force | allow -- allow as initial
punctuation-trim-adjacent: none | force -- force as initial

How does this look to you?

One issue left is making allow-end and adjacent as initial value, which other vendors may or may not like to follow. I haven't talked about this with Elika yet, I guess we could add "auto" as an UA dependent value if that's required by other vendors.

Thoughts?


-----Original Message-----
From: MURAKAMI Shinyu [mailto:murakami@antenna.co.jp] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:42 AM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: fantasai (fantasai@inkedblade.net)
Subject: Re: punctuation-trim

Koji,

> So the proposal would be:
> punctuation-trim-start: none | start -- none as initial
> punctuation-trim-end: none | end | allow-end -- allow-end as initial
> punctuation-trim-adjacent: none | adjacent -- adjacent as initial 
> punctuation-trim shortcut for the above three
> 
> or create three properties without shortcut:
> punctuation-trim-start: none | force -- none as initial
> punctuation-trim-end: none | force | allow -- allow as initial
> punctuation-trim-adjacent: none | force -- force as initial
> 
> How does this look to you?

I think the former (with shorthand) is better than the latter (without shorthand).

> 
> One issue left is making allow-end and adjacent as initial value, which other vendors may or may not like to follow. I haven't talked about this with Elika yet, I guess we could add "auto" as an UA dependent value if that's required by other vendors.

I think the initial value allow-end/adjacent are better than the UA dependent "auto", and when the punctuation-trim feature is implemented by many UAs, all such UAs should have same good default behavior.

--
MURAKAMI Shinyu
http://twitter.com/MurakamiShinyu
Antenna House Formatter:
http://www.antennahouse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Koji Ishii 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:18 PM
To: 'MURAKAMI Shinyu'
Cc: 'fantasai (fantasai@inkedblade.net)'
Subject: RE: punctuation-trim

Actually, I find myself having 4 more proposals :)


1. "no-start" etc. over "none"

"none" in this form isn't very useful; rather they should be "no-start" etc.
This allows shorthand to specify which one to disable.


2. text-justify:trim could be misused

Elika asked me about this, I thought I didn't like it first time I heard as "trim" is a property of justification, but then I changed my mind because there are pages in the wild that already have "text-justify:inter-ideograph", and they would turn off "trim" unwillingly.

So the proposal to solve this is to add "punctuation-trim-justify: no-justify | justify" instead.


3. "force" could be more special than "allow"

Given these changes, and also considering feature extensions, we might use more "allow" than "force". So, I'd like "end" be "force-end" and "allow-end" be "end". If we were to add what In Design has, it might be something like:
punctuation-trim-kana: 0% 10% /* means Kana can compress from 0% to 10% */ In this sense, using "force" keyword to force the trim might make more sense.


4. "text-trim" rather than "punctuation-trim"

Adobe has asked to extend this feature to what they have in In Design. Word already has a feature to trim Kana on justify. That makes me think that "punctuation-trim" could be too specific. How do you think about "text-trim" instead?


So, if you like all these proposals, it would look like:

text-trim-start: no-start | force-start -- no-start as initial
text-trim-end: no-end | end | force-end -- end as initial
text-trim-adjacent: no-adjacent | force-adjacent -- force-adjacent as initial
text-trim-justify: no-justify | justify -- justify as default text-trim shorthand for the above three

You can pick up which one you like and dislike of course.


-----Original Message-----
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai@inkedblade.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: MURAKAMI Shinyu
Subject: Re: punctuation-trim

On 01/12/2011 08:12 PM, Koji Ishii wrote:
> Actually, I find myself having 4 more proposals :)

:)

> So, if you like all these proposals, it would look like:
>
> text-trim-start: no-start | force-start -- no-start as initial
> text-trim-end: no-end | end | force-end -- end as initial
> text-trim-adjacent: no-adjacent | force-adjacent -- force-adjacent as 
> initial
> text-trim-justify: no-justify | justify -- justify as default 
> text-trim shorthand for the above three
>
> You can pick up which one you like and dislike of course.

Hm, seems like a lot of properties. Although I suppose we can start by introducing just the shorthand and extending it later if needed.

Murakami-san, I am not as familiar as you with the usage here. Should they all be individual controls that cascade independently, or are some better set together?

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 22:50:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT