- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:36:17 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+e3rw4vBpEkG1pLUdJA49Wh9D1OCsmnbgXM_-mbq_7KKg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:35 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > Kato-san has already pointed out the lack of prioritization > > > between the definitions of 'word-break' and 'line-break' as > > > currently specified in CSS3 Text. [1] > > > > > > But I think a larger issue is that this property defines three > > > levels of breaking, 'loose', 'normal', and 'strict' with only > > > suggestions as to what the exact meaning of these levels are. > > > > > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#line-break > > > > What do you mean by "suggestions"? The current spec provides > > sufficiently precise meaning for these terms, at least sufficiently > > specific to implement and test in Webkit [1][2][3]. > > > > On the point of optionality that you make, I agree it would be best > > to NOT mark the feature as optional. > > I'm not arguing that it's not possible to implement, I'm saying the > spec wording is a "recommendation", not a normative set of > requirements. > > >From the definition of 'line-break' in CSS3 Text [1]: > > CSS distinguishes between three levels of strictness in > the rules for text wrapping. The precise set of rules in > effect for each level is up to the UA and should follow > language conventions. However, this specification does > recommend that [... list of suggestions ...]. > > The definitions of the levels need to be normative, even if that just > means defining what's in the spec now as a minimum set of requirements > for each level. Along with no "this is optional" baloney. > Ah, I see you are confusing the term "normative" with "mandatory". An optional feature definition is still a normative definition.
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 14:37:06 UTC