- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:20:54 +0900
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbVjsMmYUViWOp8NcoakjVjb7D4+PmTpVp+=ykZFw0ZPXw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > As surfaced during the discussion of pre-wrap, there is an ambiguity in the > definition of overflow-wrap: break-word. > > > An unbreakable "word" may be broken at an arbitrary point if there are no > > otherwise-acceptable break points in the line. > > ''word'' isn't defined, which means it isn't quite clear what can or cannot > be broken. For instance, can you break in the middle of an sequence of > ? > > I'd argue that you should break. The goal of this property/value is to be > an > escape hatch, letting you break wherever if that's what it takes to avoid > overflow. > > I suggest changing this sentence in the definition to: > > An otherwise unbreakable sequence of <a>characters</a> may be broken at > an arbitrary point if there are no otherwise-acceptable break points in > the line. > > I wrote a quick test to check, and it least in simple cases (i.e. with > actual , not with semi-magic preserved sequences of white-space > when using white-space:pre-wrap) this is what everybody does (tested IE 11, > Chrome, Safari, Firefox): > > http://jsbin.com/sitowo/1/edit?html,css,output > Sounds reasonable to me, thank you for looking into this. Commited at: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/f159579704de914a3ad6c28fea4ee554acf5a20a /koji
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 14:21:23 UTC