- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 14:25:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch> wrote: >On Sat, 10 May 1997, Jukka Korpela wrote: > >> Contrary to what seems to be common belief even among HTML experts, >> soft hyphen (as defined by ISO 8859-1) is _not_ a hyphenation hint >> comparable to invisible hyphen in text processing programs. See >> http://www.hut.fi/%7ejkorpela/shy.html >> for more detailed discussion. > >I have read your text at the above URL. I am crossposting to the >Unicode list, the most active list with most experts on character >coding on it. There seems indeed to be a misunderstanding. It could >have been resolved if you had contacted us (the authors of RFC 2070) >directly instead of just writing lengthy web pages. As far as I >understand, the misunderstanding lies on your side. >[...] The real issue, at present, is whether the Cougar Recommendation will recommend implementation of "true" soft hyphenation for ­ as in the i18n RFC, despite Mozilla and MSIE not having implemented that. Can you "defend this as a business decision" (to quote Dave Raggett :)? It looks as though the possibility of a <HY> or <SHY> "gracefully degrading" tag that stands for ­ will die with a reference to the old HYPHEN proposal which nobody wanted to implement. Too bad... Cougar does adopt the i18n joiner entities by explicit reference to RFC 2070. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on their logical relationship to the Mozilla <WBR>? Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Sunday, 11 May 1997 14:26:51 UTC