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

Re: [css3-text] Proposed pruning & scoping of hyphenation properties

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:43:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4D95038B.3040603@inkedblade.net>
To: Christian Stockwell <cstock@microsoft.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/31/2011 03:20 PM, Christian Stockwell wrote:
>
>> Nope, that was intentional. There was some discussion in the F2F that a lot of
>> the hyphenation controls become not so necessary if you support Tex-style
>> paragraph breaking: there's not so much need for tweaking the hyphenation
>> limits to get good behavior. That's why I put those limit properties in the
>> optional list.
>>
>> 'hyphenate-limit-last' doesn't fall into that category: whether hyphenation is
>> allowed on the last line of a page or spread is more stylistic choice than
>> optimal breaking lever. So it made sense to leave it out of the list.
>
> Can you elaborate on how you are distinguishing "optimal breaking lever" from
> "stylistic choice"? To me this distinction appears to be completely arbitrary.
> In particular, perhaps it would be helpful to explain why "hyphenate-limit-lines"
> is "a lever" rather than a "stylistic" property since it seems to be most closely
> related to hyphenate-limit-last.
>
> Given that CSS does not require UAs to implement TEX-style paragraph breaking
> I think it's important that we make a strong statement: Either basic hyphenation
> control is important for CSS or it is not. If it is, these basic control
> properties should be required for conformance (with the exception of
> hyphenate-resource, which is not yet sufficiently defined). If basic hyphenation
> control is not important for CSS, then all of these properties should be optional.
> Our mixed message here doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm happy to make hyphenate-limit-last optional or hyphenate-limit-lines
non-optional. It doesn't matter to me. Please understand also that this
is not an official working draft, it's the editor's draft and therefore
the breakdown here is my proposal for discussion and not the WG's position.

> On an unrelated note, I think we need to properly define (or remove) the "spread"
> value. As far as I can tell it is not sufficiently defined anywhere, including
> in the print module where I'd expect to see it described. My preference is to
> remove the value since "page" should be sufficient for this use case and does not
> require us to define a completely new concept that hasn't been tackled elsewhere
> in CSS.

You're right, the spread value is underdefined right now. We do have a spread
concept in CSS2.1, however, so we should just hook into that. (It's not named
as such, but it exists implicitly in the concept of :left and :right pages.)
I'll work on clarifying that point.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 22:43:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT