- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:50:29 -0800
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * fantasai wrote: >> I strongly disagree with this. If there is normally a break >> opportunity between x and y (e.g. if x and y are kanji) then >> there should be a break opportunity between <nowrap>x</nowrap> >> and <nowrap>y</nowrap>. > > Perhaps you could share the reasoning behind this strong preference? To > me both approaches seem equally obvious and convenient, but yours is a > bit more complicated. Definitions for "normally" and "between" would be > nice to have aswell. If the author wanted the entire unit to be non-breakable, then he could have wrapped the whole thing in <nowrap>. Since there is a break in the <nowrap>, the point between the two <nowrap> elements is outside the <nowrap>. A break opportunity there should therefore not be suppressed. Otherwise there is no way to express layouts that require grouping this text run and that text run but allowing a break between them. Take "normally" to mean "if there was no markup and white-space for all content was normal". Take "between" as its normal English definition. I can't think of how that's ambiguous. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 00:51:10 UTC