- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:01:52 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/30/2012 08:17 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/05/01 10:07), fantasai wrote: >> The -wrap properties determine whether you're allowed to soft-wrap, >> whereas the -break properties determine a legitimate break point is. >> So there is a logic to that distinction. > > But 'word-wrap'/'overflow-wrap' and 'word-break' share a same > precondition: they only apply when 'text-wrap' is not 'none'. (This was > changed from IE7 to IE8 it seems: in IE9, 'word-wrap' does apply even > when 'white-space' is 'nowrap'[1].) All of the properties that control line-breaking only apply when text-wrap is not 'none'. If 'text-wrap' is none, then you're not allowed to line break! > I believe dividing the line breaking process into "deciding legitimate > break point" and "controlling a legitimate break point" is not as > intuitive as the following description > > "word-break: overflow;" breaks the word when it's about to overflow no > matter what (i.e. there's no other possible breaking point in the same > line). > > "word-break: break-all;" always break the word. > > because what authors would care is whether and how words are broken and > not complicated logic around "line breaking opportunity". This also > disallows "word-break: break-all; word-wrap: break-word;" which is > mostly a useless combination. (I doubt there are use cases for > "word-break: keep-all; word-wrap: break-word;" too) Note that "word-break: break-all" doesn't allow breaks between, e.g. きょ or immediately before a period, or between two consecutive dashes, whereas word-wrap: break-word means, if it's necessary to make it not overflow, you can break *anywhere*. Also if they are all combined, you can't have "word/overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: keep-all", and that is a useful combination. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 05:02:23 UTC