- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:40:02 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I see, makes sense. Do you think we could go with something like this then: > Hyphens (U+002D and U+2010?) contained in the word should be treated as higher priority than automatic hyphenation opportunities, unless the language-appropriate hyphenation resource explicitly contradicts this. Another way to say the same thing would be: > If language-appropriate hyphenation resource does not contain information about the priority of automatic hyphenation opportunities relative to hyphens (U+002D and U+2010?) contained in the word, the later must be treated as having higher priority. On the other hand, regardless of the hyphenation resource or the rule above, if an implementation of line breaking does not have a general concept of levels of priority for soft wrap opportunities, then the above rule does not mean much. In that case, should we prefer treating all hyphenation opportunities the same, or applying to hyphens the same logic as to soft hyphens? I'd favor the later, but this is not obvious. Also, it seems to me that the concept of prioritized hyphenation opportunities is at odds with the [hyphenate-limit-zone](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-4/#propdef-hyphenate-limit-zone) property from level 4. As currently defined, it seems to require that parts of words be pulled back from the subsequent line to fill the current one (up to a limit specified by the property), and that does not seem to allow for prioritization. Maybe that should be changed to also have an auto value that would allow for prioritization, and/or to have two values rather than one: one that indicates the minimum amount of left-over space before you're allowed (but not required) to hyphenate, the other one being the maximum amount of left-over space before you're required to hyphenate even if that means using low priority hyphenation points. (This may be a separate issue. Should I file it separately?) -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/618#issuecomment-255286347 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 21 October 2016 03:40:11 UTC