- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:04:29 +0900
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbXrRGxjVN-SvgMmMv1hV7ms7d6QdqO6LfZ61ZDO-MqMHw@mail.gmail.com>
Blink tried to remove, but failed as some sites relied on its minor different behavior. See http://crbug.com/492202 for more details. There Bogdan said he agreed to add, so we resolved it as WontFix. /koji 2016-08-17 6:11 GMT+09:00 Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>: > I expect this is in response to issues like these: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=959735 (Wired) > https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/1671 (LinkedIn) > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1136818 (random site) > ...which are all cases where a site accidentally depends on nonstandard > "word-break: break-word". (which WebKit & Blink support, but other > engines do not) This ends up producing text that either overflows off > the screen, or wraps in arbitrary places in the middle of short words > for no good reason (depending on what other CSS this style is combined > with). > > In each of these cases, the page's CSS could (and was) fixed by using > "word-wrap" instead of "word-break". But if WebKit/Blink intend to keep > shipping this non-standard value indefinitely, it will probably continue > to create webcompat issues (particularly on mobile sites, where authors > tend to only test WebKit/Blink). > > So, I'd be in favor of adding it to the spec, if WebKit/Blink aren't > intending to drop support. > > ~Daniel > > > > On 08/16/2016 01:28 PM, fantasai wrote: > > Going through css-text-3 issues with astearns today... > > At Sydney we resolved > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Mar/0352.html > > RESOLVED: Add word-break: break-word to spec if Edge/Firefox > > find it critical enough to Web compat to implement it. > > > > Anyone from Gecko or Edge teams have further information on this issue? > > > > Be careful: there are several very similar-sounding property-value > > combinations, we're specifically interested in this one. ;) > > > > ~fantasai > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 03:05:18 UTC