W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text-3] Audit details of break-spaces value against use cases

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 04:08:13 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-400171764-1529986092-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
So, Igalia+Google are in the middle of implementing this, and have suggested we make a change to the syntax: instead of having `break-spaces` be a `||` alternative in `overflow-wrap`, it could be a `|` alternative in `white-space`.

* `||` alternatives are easier to implement than `|` alternatives
* `break-spaces` is only useful when combined with `white-space:pre-wrap`, so you have to check that property anyway. It could instead be a variant of `white-space:pre-wrap`, on the same property.
* There is not a particularly strong correlation between the `break-spaces` and `break-word` values from the point of view of where authors want to set them. They don't particularly need to be cascading together
* It fits some people's mental model better

* in a browser that does not support `break-spaces`, the fallback of `white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap:break-spaces` would be `white-space:pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: normal`. This is closer to the original intent than falling back from `white-space: break-spaces` to `white-space: normal`. This is can be easily mitigated by authors explicitly providing a fallback value (`white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: break-spaces;`) though.
* It fits some other people's mental model better

The set of property and values that control line breaking and white space is messy and hard to understand anyway, and I don't think we can find a perfectly elegant answer. We've been renaming and shuffling this value between various properties for the last 3 years or so. Chasing perfect is the enemy of good.

Personally, I think either alternative is OK. Given that this request comes from the first implementation effort, I am inclined to support it, so that we can ship this asap, and finally put it in the hands of authors.

If the WG is firmly against that change, I'm OK with that too, and hope that Igalia+Google can live with that.

Either way, we should resolve and move on.

CCing people who have previously opined: @javifernandez @kojiishi @fantasai @litherum @tabatkins  

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2465#issuecomment-400171764 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 04:08:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 June 2018 04:08:34 UTC