W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-text] feedback on 'word-break: keep-all;'

From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 15:55:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4FA29C76.7060304@gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 3/5/12 15:30, Ambrose LI wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu<kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>:
>> The current prose for this is
>>
>>   # ‘keep-all’
>>   #
>>   #   Lines may break only at word separators and other explicit break
>>   #   opportunities. Otherwise this option is equivalent to ‘normal’.
>>   #   This option is mostly used where word separator characters are
>>   #   present to create line-breaking opportunities, as in Korean.
>>
>> . This is certainly less vague than what was previous written (CJK text
>> and non-CJK text, IIRC), but I have a question and a feedback:
>>
>> 1. What does "other explicit break opportunities" mean? forced breaks? I
>> should note that IE9 breaks after hyphen even if "keep-all" is
>> specified, is it following the spec? In any case, I think this should be
>> the specced behavior as I think it's weird if 'word-break: keep-all' has
>> side effect like this for Korean authors.
>>
>> 2. Word separators include nbsp but IE9 doesn't break at nbsp when
>> "keep-all" is specified and I think nbsp should be excluded here.
>
> Personally opinions here only, but breaking at hyphens
> indiscriminately cannot be right. Even in English there are many
> scenarios where indiscriminate breaking at hyphens is intuitively
> wrong (short prefixes like e- or co-, phone numbers, unit or street
> numbers in addresses, and so on), so I don’t know why IE does that.

I think it's reasonable regard hyphen as an "explicit break opportunity" 
for the purposes of keep-all. It's widely expected that a line-break is 
permitted after hyphen; if this is not wanted, the user needs to take 
explicit action to prevent it (just as with inter-word spaces).

Use U+2011 NON-BREAKING HYPHEN for hyphens that are not supposed to 
offer a break opportunity.

&nbsp; should indeed be excluded; its very purpose is to NOT offer a 
line-break opportunity where the inter-word space would normally provide 
one.

JK
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 14:56:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT