Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-text-4] text-wrap: balance feedback following the experimental Chrome Canary implementation (#8516)

Hey hey, @kojiishi, thanks for implementing this!

> I think the text-align issue is an implementation issue. This is now fixed in the next Canary. 

Awesome!

>  In general, I think implementation issues can get better attentions from implementors at the implementation issue trackers

I agree that filing those in the appropriate trackers could be ideal, and now that I know the exact issue for the `text-wrap: balance`, I could easily do this if/when I would encounter other issues.

Though, I'd say I think there is still reason to report things like I mentioned here: specs wording could always be improved, and the more clear and precise it is, the easier it is for implementers to get it right, and for the developers to understand what some given CSS would do, so mentioning issues that appear and if they could be clarified in the specs seems like a good idea to me.

> Regarding your point 4, please see #672 for some of reasons not to define the exact algorithm. I agree with you that defining more details has good aspects, but it has both sides.

Thanks, would read that! I understand it, and would just re-iterate that I find the current Canary implementation acceptable and logical enough that this exact behavior could probably be worth it to define in the specs themselves, while leaving some kind of “pretty” which is subjective to a specific UA more open-ended.

If I was to dream big, I would propose allowing developers to have a much finer control over all of this — basically how cool it would be if authors could control all the points mentioned in the https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/672 by themselves, not just relying on the UA to make some generic averagely good solution? But this is probably too ambitious :)

> I would like the initial version to be not too slow, so that even performance-sensitive sites could try.

Agree that this is the best path, and what I propose is to adjust the specification to match that, so it could also start with just 4 lines, maybe mentioning that this could be expanded in the following versions. This would remove the burden from the UAs and questions from the developers who would encounter the difference between the specs and implementation.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kizu
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8516#issuecomment-1453802827 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 3 March 2023 16:42:52 UTC