- 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