- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:17:25 +0900
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF63+7U7LTqf65NFqNrDnf-E3OVaiB-wSR=b6GGXfG4CP3UVww@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > Two people read the text differently, so the clarification appreciated. > > Both word-wrap/overflow-wrap: break-word[1] and word-break: break-all[2] > say: > > > Shaping characters are still shaped as if the word were not broken. > > and > > > When shaping scripts such as Arabic are allowed to break within words > due to break-all, the characters must still be shaped as if the word were > not broken. > > One read these text as after a word was broken, each broken part is > reshaped as if it is a word. > Wrong. The other read as after a word was broken, the reshape must not occur. > Also wrong. The correct intended behavior is that text needs to be reshaped after breaking lines, period. However, during shaping, for Arabic-like scripts, the Unicode Arabic Joining algorithm is run to decide which form of each Arabic character to use. It's *this* part of the shaping that should act "as if the word were not broken". Most shaping engines don't support this subtle distinction, but for example, HarfBuzz does. When shaping a piece of text, you can pass to HarfBuzz the surrounding text as well and it will do the right thing regarding choosing the right forms for Arabic Joining. behdad > Which is correct? > > [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-3/#valdef-overflow-wrap-break-word > [2] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-3/#valdef-word-break-break-all > > /koji > -- behdad http://behdad.org/
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 03:17:55 UTC