On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:53:37 +0200
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela_at_cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> The <wbr> tag (an old nonstandard tag, now being standardized in
> HTML5) would not have been needed if browsers had supported U+200B.
> It is nowadays debatable which one should be used (U+200B has the
> disadvantage of not being supported by IE 6, a still somewhat
> significant point).
U+200B has the distinct advantage of being a character, and therefore
readily travelling with the words it separates. It's quite a useful
character when dealing with inadequate or non-existent dictionaries for
languages that don't have visible separators between words or,
depending on line-breaking practice, syllables.
Richard.
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Mon Feb 10 2014 - 13:53:04 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 10 2014 - 13:53:04 CST