W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

Re: [css3-text] Hyphenation Resources

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:36:59 -0800 (PST)
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: liam@w3.org, jfkthame@gmail.com
Message-ID: <1971349164.157469.1296545819806.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

Looking at this a tiny bit more, it appears that the AH format is
actually based on FOP:


I'm curious if folks working on XSL/FOP feel that the formats and
algorithms used for automated hyphenation have been sufficiently
flushed out enough to allow for a common format?  Or would it be
better to allow user agents room to innovate and then define
something later?

John Daggett

cc'ing Liam Quinn

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 4:15:08 PM
Subject: [css3-text] Hyphenation Resources

The current CSS3 Text spec defines a 'hyphenation-resource' @-rule:


This was based on a similar property defined in CSS3 GCPM:


However, neither of these reference or define a syntax for the
hyphenation resource. Effectively, these are UA-specific
resources when defined this way.  As such, I don't see any reason
for supporting either the @-rule or the property in the current
form; they're both effectively vendor-specific properties with
*no* interoperability between user agents.  I think the format
should be defined/referenced explicitly or it should be removed
from the spec and left to a vendor-specific property.

For example, Antenna House uses this syntax:


Would this be a suitable format to require?  Or is there another
publicly available format that would also suffice?  Maybe
something from TeX would work?  What does Prince use?

I think one argument will be that CSS doesn't specify formats for
other types of resources such as images.  But in the case of
images there were already well-supported image types, so it
wasn't really necessary to specify these to achieve some form of
interoperability.  The same is not true for hyphenation


John Daggett
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 07:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:55 UTC