Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text-3] Assorted editorial clarifications/requests (#3461)

> Unclear whether or not the form feed causes breaks to be removed.

Shouldn't be, rendering as a different character doesn't change its identity....

> Also, "rendered as a zero-width space" is probably not what you want. Zero-width spaces can participate in text shaping inside the font, and some fonts even have visible glyphs for zero-width-space that get removed by shaping. Why doesn't the spec say they're removed instead of rendered as U+200B?

Because you didn't want to in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/855#issuecomment-380435969 ? :)

[Re-opened that issue because we later resolved on different handling for CR, but didn't re-discuss FF.]

> Similarly to above, leaving behind the ZWS is probably not what you want, as it can participate in shaping. It seems CSS is trying to treat the ZWS as a flag to signal behavior for the following break; leaving the flag behind seems like pollution.

ZWSP isn't pollution, it's signal. It's the white space surrounding it that's noise we're trying to clear out. If we removed the ZWSP along with the white space, we'd lose important behavior that it represents, like a line break opportunity / break in joining.

> A more useful link would be appreciated, instead of linking to the Unicode homepage.

That's not the Unicode home page (which is at http://www.unicode.org/), it's the table of contents for the core standard. I can't take responsibility for how the main content is in a sidebar. :/ Default_ignorable is defined, in this edition, in section 5.21. (Many of our references to Unicode are to its annexes, which each have their own HTML document at their own URL, but this is a reference into the core standard, which is a PDF linked from this version-agnostic landing page.)

 > These sentences seem contradictory. "Removed" is not "collapsed."

Adjusted the wording. Fwiw, the latter is trying to handle the requirements brought up in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0936.html I'm not sure how well it's succeeding.

> It took me a while to figure out what the Segment Break Transformation Rules were trying to accomplish. An example showing uninterrupted Chinese text would be appreciated.

OK, I'll add an example. :)

> In some other writing systems, soft wrap opportunities... This paragraph seems non-normative. Perhaps move it to a note?

That paragraph as well as the previous one are similar in that they're laying out the expectations. They're not strictly normative nor really solely informative... This is somewhat of an introductory section anyway, so I think it's better to leave them outside of a note. Notes are a type of aside, and this information is somewhat critical to making sense of the spec.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3461#issuecomment-451209982 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2019 17:08:53 UTC