- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:36:23 -0400
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 22:11 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:19 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > liam: This proposal is to let an author/script say "this piece of text > > is going to be interactively edited"... > > liam: I imagine a print processor would set this to "batch" - not edited. > > liam: You care about editted or not because if you insert a word in the > > middle of a paragraph, and you use a multi-line linebreaking algo, > > your text will reflow and your insertion point might move up or > > down a line. > > liam: Some programs handle this by only reflowing when you finish editing, > > but it's ugly in the meantime. It's a problem with a long history. > > liam: Two parts of this proposal: > > liam: 1) Say your intent, interactive or batch. > > liam: 2) Second, experimentally, say what algorithm to use. > ... > > I just want to say here that I think it's very important that whatever > happens in this area, renderers are allowed to apply higher-quality > linebreaking algorithms to documents *without* authors having to opt > in. I agree strongly - my suggestion was (and remains) to make the default implementation dependent. The goal is to make it easier for browsers & CSS formatters to experiment with higher quality line-breaking algorithms, such as n-line, but to provide a mechanism (as you say) for preventing possible problems. Thanks, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml The barefoot typographer, http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 02:36:26 UTC