Skip to content

[css-text] Introduce a text-wrap-style value focused on orphans #10837

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Sep 13, 2024

Conversation

frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

@frivoal frivoal commented Sep 5, 2024

@frivoal frivoal requested review from fantasai and astearns September 5, 2024 09:15
and possibly use it selectively where it matters most.
</div>

<dt><dfn>reduce-orphans</dfn>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<dt><dfn>reduce-orphans</dfn>
<dt><dfn>avoid-orphans</dfn>

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc: @astearns The key is to find a term that indicates that the value is about getting rid of orphans, but not in all circumstances, and not at any cost.
avoid as suggested here by @fantasai is already used in CSS (see https://drafts.csswg.org/indexes/) in a number of places with the meaning "don't, unless [X]", so I think it can work: the precise criteria for when not to do it is left up to the UA, but it is there.
To me, reduce could work too, but the meaning is almost too weak: instead of a rule generally applied with exceptions as implied by avoid, it would seem to indicate a slant, a preference. It's not wholly inappropriate here, especially given that everything is largely up to the user agent anyway, but that seems weaker than the author intent we're aiming for.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I’m OK going with avoid for now. But I do think that authors are going to expect that all orphans will be eliminated, and UAs absolutely should not do that.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

authors are going to expect that all orphans will be eliminated

If they don't think about too much, probably. But if you show them examples of cases where it would be bad to do so, and it doesn't do so, I suspect they'll be happy with the result, since forcibly doing it would be ugly.

frivoal and others added 3 commits September 6, 2024 09:54
Co-authored-by: fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net>
Co-authored-by: fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net>
Co-authored-by: fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net>
and possibly use it selectively where it matters most.
</div>

<dt><dfn>reduce-orphans</dfn>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I’m OK going with avoid for now. But I do think that authors are going to expect that all orphans will be eliminated, and UAs absolutely should not do that.

@frivoal frivoal merged commit 57fe11e into w3c:main Sep 13, 2024
1 check passed
@frivoal frivoal deleted the reduce-orphans branch September 13, 2024 07:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants