From: fantasai (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 07:34:16 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
> >> classes.
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Nov/0020
> 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.
I've added to the definition of 'text-wrap: normal':
"Line breaking behavior defined for the WJ, ZW, and GL line-breaking
classes in [UAX14] must be honored."
And to the definition of 'text-wrap' generally:
"For all values, line-breaking behavior defined for the BK, CR, LF,
CM NL, and SG line breaking classes in [UAX14] must be honored."
That covers all the non-tailorable classes except for SP.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 07:36:32 CST