[Bug 13108] Add &zwsp; as named character reference for zero width space (U+200B)

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13108

fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.ne
                   |                            |t
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---

--- Comment #8 from fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> ---
Reopening to add some more information and correct a few misconceptions. Also,
given both the usability win and the existing implementation in IE, I'd like to
see this fixed. (I can say I've mistakenly used &zwsp; multiple times,
expecting it to work.)

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> IIRC, we specifically decided not to include IE's bidi formatting named
> characters. I don't remember what the rationale was, though.
>
> If this is added to the spec, I think we should add all of IE's bidi formatting
> named characters instead of waiting for them to be proposed one by one.

I think this is a fair, but invalid, concern. ZWSP is not related to bidi at
all.

David Carlisle wrote:
> Is there actually a use case for using 200B as opposed to 200C (zwnj) or
> 200D (zwj) or is it mainly just that IE supports it so people will try
> to use it? (IE supporting it may in fact be a good enough reason).

Yes, they are in fact quite different:
  ZWSP - Breaks a word (and therefore also Arabic joining) with no visible
space.
  ZWJ  - Not a word break. Forces joining behavior.
  ZWNJ - Not a word break, but breaks joining.

Unless you are writing in a shaped script like Arabic, using ZWNJ or ZWJ is not
useful. However, ZWSP provides an invisible break opportunity, like <wbr>.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 15:34:16 UTC