From: fantasai (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 05:27:44 CST
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:22:23 +0100, fantasai
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Your argument has convinced me that CSS3 Text should be normatively
>> requiring the correct implementation of UAX14's normative line breaking
Yep. But there's no reason the behavior specified in UAX14 for mandatory
breaks (CR, LF, NEL, etc) shouldn't be required. For CSS3 Text, the
behavior specified for BK, CR, LF, CM, NL classes can, I think, be safely
required in all cases. The behavior for WJ, ZW, and GL should be required
in normal text wrapping. I don't think we care about SG either way.
References to any other parts of UAX14 should be informative only.
(The required behavior of SP is imho, not clearly defined. I don't want to
import normative text that may or may not contradict the CSS spec itself.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 05:31:06 CST