Re: [css3-text] Splitting CSS Text into Level 3 and Level 4

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:05:35 +0100, fantasai  
<> wrote:

> On 11/21/2011 03:00 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:

>>> * line-break
>> I am still not a big fan of this one. With the tweaks made to it  
>> recently,
>> at least I am not too worried about interoperability problems, but I am
>> still not a fan of the idea in general,
>> Is anybody other than EPUB pushing for this? If not, since we decided we
>> needed to talk more with them, can we ask them if this solves their use
>> cases? If it does, I am still not too enthusiastic, but if it doesn't
>> (and I think there is a chance it falls a bit short), I see no need to
>> have this at all.
> It is also implemented, unprefixed, in IE.

It is. Does it do in IE exactly what the spec says? The syntax is the same,
but what about the semantics? Is it used much? I think the answer to these
questions is no, so I don't really see what difference it makes for IE's to
have it already, since we're not documenting existing behavior that is  
relied on by existing content.

IE can have its property without the WG specifying it, as they already do.
If we want this to work interoperably, we should specify it, but if nobody
is asking for this, I don't see why we should bother.

I acknowledge that for EPUB purposes, some control over line breaks is  
but I am not convinced that what is currently proposed addresses the EPUB  
cases. If it doesn't, that may leave us without anybody interested in the
current proposal.

Which is why I am asking: Does anyone other than EPUB care about this? If  
is this good enough to address EPUB's needs?

>>> * hanging-punctuation
>> For values none, force-end, and allow-end, I agree to include in level  
>> 3.
>> But if I recall the use cases correctly, first and last were only useful
>> in combination with text-spacing, which you propose (and I agree) to
>> defer to level 4, so these 2 values should move to level 4 as well.
> "first" and "last" are useful also for Western typesetting. They are
> well-defined and implemented. I don't think they should be deferred.

Fair enough. I was thinking that for western hanging punctuation, you may
fairly often want to style the hanging part differently (bigger), and that
this proposal doesn't handle it. But that's orthogonal, so ok, these can  
in level 3.

>>> * text-justify
>> I'd push this back. [...]
> I don't know of any open issues on this property, other than the request
> for more examples, as I addressed all other the feedback that was brought
> forward. If you have more issues, you'll have to raise them.

I don't have specific problems with details of the proposal, but rather a
general opinion about it. I am just not sure this is the right approach.  
previous proposal (discussed at Kyoto), was too specific about a few  
such that it would disallow good justification algorithms (such as TeX's).
Now that's fixed, but the result seems fairly fuzzy to me, and I am not  
we can expect much interoperability out of it. How would you write text  
for this?

I don't have an alternative proposal, but this doesn't strike me as the
right approach.

>>> * letter-spacing
>>> * word-spacing
>> I'd defer these two. [...]
> You'll have to be a lot more specific than that if you want to raise an
> issue on this.

My issue here is simple. These two properties and text-justify are  
(as evidenced by the fact that they refer to each other in their  
definition), so
they should be introduced at the same time. Since I don't feel comfortable  
text-justify, I'd like these to to wait out until we figure it out.

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 14:42:22 UTC