Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text] Having overflow-wrap: break-word affect min-content size is not webcompatible

The Working Group just discussed `Having overflow-wrap: break-word affect min-content size is not webcompatible`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Try a new rule in UA stylesheet and see how it impacts rate of bugs for FF then come back to this`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Having overflow-wrap: break-word affect min-content size is not webcompatible<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> xidorn: I put in change to make overflow-wrap:break-word to effect min content. We immediately got 4 bugs. fantasai suggested we can make table reset the overflow-wrap to normal which fixes 2 of them.<br>
&lt;dael> xidorn: I want to bring it to WG and see what we do next<br>
&lt;dael> florian: What are remaining 2? PHP manual thing was one?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: It looks like a strangely coded web page.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: What's last?<br>
&lt;dael> xidorn: I think fantasai and the [missed] said it was wrong use and we can ignore<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: We're talking about 4 bugs and it's on the nightly channel<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I'm not sure what to do. I think alternatives are terrible and web compat is a problem<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/and/but/<br>
&lt;dael> myles: We don't have a choice. 4 bugs on a nightly. Webcompat is more important<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I suggest we try the UA stylesheet change and see. If the change on tables solves the general problem maybe we're back. If not we have to do something else<br>
&lt;dael> frremy: My PoV I don't believe a quick change will fix. At MS we have other issues we're seeing where we'd like to reconsider word-break:break-word where we had websites change to break-all and Edge breaks in the middle. I know we supported not supporting it, but I'm becoming less convinced we can't. So supporting break-word is an option on the table. We should consider that as a part of this<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: WE have someone from PHP engaging on issue. Example where table is not breaking, behavior they want ideally is that you have 2 types of min-content? They want table to wrap at normal word breaks but not in overflow wrap cases unless it's necessary. If you look at example there is text that could wrap more without breaking code words and they expect those breaks take priority.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Not sure where to go with that, but it occurred to me that we're not handling that type of prioritization correctly in general<br>
&lt;dael> florian: So I felt we did find 4 bugs and if we fix UA we fix 2 and the other bugs were different<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Does the fix break what the sites were intending?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Sites broken intended to not apply inside the table.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I think you need to be careful on intent. A lot of sites might have waned current behavior where it allows long content to break<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Tables doesn't do that<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Okay<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: b/c changes min-content<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Right, so table won't shrink to where it could break<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: [sigh]<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'd like Moz to try the UA stylesheet fix and see where that gets us. Maybe not enough, but good to check.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If that doesn't break the web more it proides a clean path for new authors and maybe on top of that we still need word-break:break-word for frremy's reasons<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Idea case maybe is that...One case was someone put content in a 0 width continer and said I'd like you to word-break:break-word but shrink wrap took effect so it didn't. Other cases it seems there's multi levels of prioritization where we have 2 and authors would like 3. That's a big thing to think about.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Overflow-wrap breaks are deprioritized in terms of when we accept the break. We're not able to deprioritize in terms of min-content width.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: For word-break:break-word it's awful ergonomics for CSS to add it. Authors are already confused on breaking prop and what called<br>
&lt;dael> florian: That's why I think we should keep trying and maybe spec as a corner<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If we have toe revert this I'd prefer a keyword to overflow-wrap that's the same as break-word but also effects min-content like 'overflow-wrap-anywhere' that's the same as word-break:break-word but lets author consider like multiple properties. word-break:break-word and word-wrap:break-word can't be combined<br>
&lt;dael> myles: Have we veered from original topic?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Going back to this one<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think it would be interesting to see if adding UA stylesheet rule would make it tolerably compat, but I'm not an impl so I'm not qualified to have an opinion for how that would be as an experiment.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Given we don't have clear solution I think trying this in browser stylesheet and getting more data is reasonable next step<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Might not be enough but good start<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: xidorn and dbaron sound good to try?<br>
&lt;dael> xidorn: I think we can try that. Easy enough to add it<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections to Try a new rule in UA stylesheet and see how it impacts rate of bugs for FF?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Try a new rule in UA stylesheet and see how it impacts rate of bugs for FF then come back to this<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2018 23:37:18 UTC