- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:34:16 +1300
- To: Paul Nelson <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, www-style@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, unicode@unicode.org
fantasai wrote:
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:22:23 +0100, fantasai
> > <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> >> Your argument has convinced me that CSS3 Text should be normatively
> >> requiring the correct implementation of UAX14's normative line breaking
> >> classes.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Nov/0020
>
> Yep. But there's no reason the behavior specified in UAX14 for mandatory
> breaks (CR, LF, NEL, etc) shouldn't be required. For CSS3 Text, the
> behavior specified for BK, CR, LF, CM, NL classes can, I think, be safely
> required in all cases. The behavior for WJ, ZW, and GL should be required
> in normal text wrapping. I don't think we care about SG either way.
I've added to the definition of 'text-wrap: normal':
"Line breaking behavior defined for the WJ, ZW, and GL line-breaking
classes in [UAX14] must be honored."
And to the definition of 'text-wrap' generally:
"For all values, line-breaking behavior defined for the BK, CR, LF,
CM NL, and SG line breaking classes in [UAX14] must be honored."
That covers all the non-tailorable classes except for SP.
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:34:45 UTC