- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:07:12 -0400
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org
Richard Ishida wrote: >Fantasai wrote: >>Proposed: >> word-break: keep-all | strict | normal | break-all >> >>Justification: >> Practically-speaking, there's only one scale of strictness. >> strictest <----------------------> loosest >> line-break | irrelevant | strict | normal | normal | >> word-break-cjk | keep-all | normal | normal | break-all | >> >> * normal vs. strict line-breaking is irrelevant when keep-all takes effect. >> * The combination of strict and break-all makes little sense. (Why >> would you allow breaks in scripts like Latin, where breaking words >> in random places is wrong, but disallow breaks before small kana, >> where breaking is merely discouraged?) > > I disagree with your recommendations here. I don't see there being one scale > of strictness at all, and think that your approach is too biased towards the > Western view. ... > The word-break-cjk alternatives are not a question of scale of breakability > in my mind. It relates to the application of character vs word wrapping > paradigms to runs of CJK vs non-CJK text... > The effects of the line-break property are a different issue, not part of the > same scale of breakability: Where CJK text breaks on a character basis, do we > apply the kinsoku/geumchik/other rules, and if so, to what extent... It's > just that such rules don't apply to the non-CJK, because they are based on > specific Asian characters. Do the line-break and word-break-cjk properties need to cascade independently or is this redefinition of 'word-break' sufficient? Property || Equivalent to || word-break || line-break word-break-cjk ===============||======================================= keep-all || - keep-all normal || strict normal loose || normal normal break-strict || strict break-all break-all || normal break-all > I *do* have the following issues with the current CSS text: > ... > [2] re line-break: Kinsoku rules cover much more than just splitting small > kana. I don't think this is clearly described in the text. Nor is it clear > that this is applicable to Chinese and Korean text, as well as Japanese. Nor > that the kana question is not relevant in Chinese or Korean text. If you could provide some pointers to information on line breaking rules for any of these languages, I will do my best to add details to the spec. I've tried looking, but much of the literature is in Japanese, which I unfortunately can't read. (My Chinese isn't up to the task, either, but I could handle French if necessary...) > [3] I think there ought to be a third alternative for line-break: none. This > would turn off line breaking restrictions. There are occasions where I might > want to do that. This can be done with the text-wrapping properties. 'word-break' defines the "word" (wrt line breaking) boundaries, and 'text-wrap' indicates whether to respect the word boundaries when wrapping lines. > [4] I think it would be easier to understand the properties on an initial > read if word-break-cjk was introduced before line-break, since that provides > a more top-down approach. I also think that line-break is to cjk what > word-break-inside is to some non-CJK scripts, so it makes sense to explain > those alongside each other. Ok, I'll remember to invert the order. ~fantasai -- http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/contact
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 07:07:58 UTC