W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [css-text] Shaping Isolation and Layout Separation of Inlines

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:43:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB5rMC7dks+FA6Ghug-WNj_y8e0N-PkMSzQy0VHqkM2hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 06:02 PM, John Daggett wrote:
>> fantasai wrote:
>>>> Not sure what the intended purpose of this text is but I guess the
>>>> first question is whether it's necessary or not.
>>> We got requests to clarify when Arabic joining is broken or not
>>> broken at an inline boundary. For example, some implementations
>>> breaking joining even when there's no style change. This is clearly
>>> bad. As another example, in another implementation joining was
>>> preserved even when margin/border/padding was nonzero, which created
>>> problems for a set of inlined list items that were now pretending to
>>> be all part of the same word.
>> I don't think it's an easy task to come up with a good definition of
>> whether shaping is broken or not at inline boundaries, at least not one that
>> will actually be useful for implementations to use as a guideline. Better to
>> consider what's optimal and what's not. Breaking at presentational style
>> changes (e.g. color) shouldn't happen. But any property change that affects
>> positioning (e.g. nonzero margin/border/padding) or alters an input to
>> shaping will potentially affect the output of shaping. Whether it does or
>> not will depend on underlying implementation details.
>> I'm not sure specifying this in great detail helps implementations that
>> really need to understand the scripts that they are dealing with in the
>> first place. Giving them general guidelines to follow is better I think.
> I think there are three classes of guidelines here, actually:
>   1. Must not break shaping. (No style change case. You have no excuse.)
>   2. Should not break shaping, if possible. YMMV depending on
>      implementation/font technology. Less breakage = better.
>   3. Must break shaping.
> And I think we should be able to give interoperable results
> on 1 and 3.

And, for some languages, #2 can be subdivided further, such as the
"give the correct Arabic letter form, even if you can't shape them
properly" topic.

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 01:44:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:24 UTC