- From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:02:57 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hello all, A positive (e.g. 1em) letter-spacing in Arabic looks the same in all browsers (according to spec?) as for the Latin languages. But in Arabic writing system, letters are joined. So it doesn't look good, thought it's still readable: ﻏ ر ﻳ ﺐ vs. غريب As for the Latin languages, negative space (e.g. 1px), may "tight" the letters a bit, but beyond, it becomes an unreadable jam. So, okay to say that the property is undefined for some contexts or some languages. Or that a negative value doesn't make sense. Regards, Najib On 6/14/13 12:51 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2013/06/14 20:18, fantasai wrote: > >> Issue 4: The 'letter-spacing' property as currently implemented puts >> space between Arabic letters. Does this make sense? Should there be >> some other behavior instead (e.g. suppressing letter-spacing)? >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#letter-spacing >> >> data:text/html;charset=utf-8;base64,PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw%2BDQo8cCBzdHlsZT0ibGV0dGVyLXNwYWNpbmc6IDFlbSI%2B2qnZhduMINmG2YjYtNiq2YbZhiDYudix2KjbjA%3D%3D >> > > Hello Fantasai, > > I think you know much more about the Arabic script than most of us, so > I'm a bit surprised to get such a question. The spaced Arabic from the > above data URI, at least to me as an outsider, looks quite wrong. At > the minimum, I would expect the letters to stay connected where they > are connected. > > As far as I remember, on first approximation, a kashida/tatweel > (longer coursive connection) would be used in certain positions in a > word to deal with superfluous space on a line (when trying to > justify). But better typography would probably be much more complex. > > I seem to remember that years ago, there was a proposal to have a > property relating to kashida/tatweel. Maybe it was something like how > much of the slack space would go to spaces between words and how much > would be absorbed by kashidas, in terms of percentages. > > > Anyway, I think the more general problem here is how to move on with > specs where we know that something isn't correct, or isn't culturally > appropriate, or isn't optimal, but it may take years for browser > implementers to improve their implementations. > > Ideally, we could say in the spec that a certain property is > (currently) undefined in a certain context, and that would mean it > wouldn't be tested, and the spec could move on, and in a later > version, once some implementations got advanced and we have better > ideas what to do, we could specify that case, too. But the danger is > that we get content that relies on unspecified stuff. > > Another alternative is to specify something as applying to all cases > (if that's what the implementations do currently), and in a later spec > define another property (let's say > cancel-letter-spacing-for-cursive-scripts, with no as the default and > yes (and inherited) as two other values) as a fix. > > Of course the problem is much smaller if it's easy to fix the > implementations. > > Regards, Martin. > >
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 18:00:27 UTC