Re: [CSSWG][css-text-3] CSS3 Text Last Call Working Draft

On 11/07/2013 08:21 PM, CE Whitehead wrote:
> > 5.1, par 1, 3rd bullet
> "As long as care is taken to avoid such awkward breaks, allowing breaks
> at appropriate punctuation other than spaces is recommended, as it
> results in more even-looking margins, particularly in narrow measures. "
> { COMMENT on Content:  "recommended"? I am not sure that this practice
> is always "recommended" in languages such as English and French,
> when the column width/text box width is not narrow; however breaking
> longer urls at slashes might be recommended in most every language
> (you do not mention urls; but that's a common instance where text is
> broken where there are no spaces). But I am not sure that you should
> use the word "recommended" when talking about breaking of standard
> written prose.

I think the recommendation is fine; as long there is a reasonable minimum
length before breaking at a non-space (and that minimum could vary by the
measure), it is definitely better to allow breaks at punctuation such as
slashes. And there are other characters, such as em dashes, for which
breaking at punctuation is pretty much always better than disallowing such

> Also I am confused about the word "such." What "such awkward breaks"
> are you referring to?

"such" is referring to the example in the previous sentence. I've swapped
out the order of sentences so that it is now in the immediately-previous

> 5.2 2nd or 3rd par? 1rst bulleted item
>   "Following breaks be forbidden in ‘strict’ line breaking and allowed in
>    ‘normal’ and ‘loose’:
> { COMMENT/QUESTION: Don't you mean, "The following breaks . . . ??"
> I think you have omitted the definite article here.    I

Yes. Fixed.

> have the same comment on the second bulleted item, "Following breaks be forbidden in ‘|normal|’ and ‘|strict|’ line breaking
> and allowed in ‘|loose|’" => "The following breaks be forbidden in . . . "; in any case, I think this whole set of bulleted
> items might benefit from rewording; I particularly did not like breaking up "that" and "be forbidden"; in my rewrite, I've
> used * to indicate the outer bullet and + to indicate the inner one }

I've reworded the section. Hopefully it's acceptable now.

> "Similarly, when space is distributed an expansion opportunity between two characters, it is applied under the same rules as
> for ‘letter-spacing’. "
> { COMMENT: I think you have omitted a preposition here? Do you mean, "distributed TO an expansion opportunity"?}

Yes, fixed.

> 7.3.2 par 1
> "When determining expansion opportunities, characters from the Unicode Symbols (S*) and Punctuation (P*) classes are generally
> treated the same as a letter:"
> { COMMENT: "characters" is a plural noun; "letter" is a singular; this sentence would read better if both were either singular
> or plural; so you have two options -- either make "letter" plural or somehow make "characters" singular. }

Also fixed.


Received on Saturday, 10 May 2014 20:11:01 UTC