On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:40 AM fantasai <fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> That test doesn't cover the interaction of other values of `white-space` > with > the `nowrap` value of `text-wrap`. It would be incorrect for e.g. > `white-space: pre` to return `text-wrap: wrap`. > > I think it would be better to just implement both longhands of > `white-space` > properly. > Implementing `nowrap` and other values is easy but it creates other new compat risks that are more difficult for authors to handle. With the current impl, authors can detect the situation by `supports(‘text-wrap: nowrap’)`. I'm not concerned about the quality of the balancing, as I'm sure it's > fine, > and it will improve over time... my concerns are mainly with > a) interaction of the properties > b) any layout interactions with e.g. floats, initial-letter, positioning, > text > justification, box sizing, etc. > c) whether the CSSWG considers this stable enough to ship, or if there are > unresolved concerns about the design of the feature > I understand that the spec is still in early draft, it’s WD, not CR, PR, nor REC. If the spec changes, we can change our implementation accordingly. Even if names were changed or the feature was dropped, not applying `text-wrap: balance` doesn’t cause disasters; it just lays out the same as other browsers. Also, the NYTimes article says it detects the support of `text-wrap: balance` <https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/text-wrap-balance.html#:~:text=CSS.supports(%27text%2Dwrap%27%2C%20%27balance%27)> . I'll note that there was an issue filed in the CSSWG repo recently in > response > to the Blink implementation: > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8516 > and it raises questions about sizing and floats, among other things. > Thank you for citing this, yes, that was great feedback. I fixed bugs reported there, Tab and I responded, and the reporter responded “agree that this is the best approach <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8516#issuecomment-1453802827>”. See also questions in the 2nd paragraph of > > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/f5eLz6PIXaI/m/a9OGhvaNAAAJ > which seem to have been mostly ignored... > The #8516 you cited above <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8516> has some initial feedback. Also I will share any feedback we get with the WG and I look forward to discussing them. If spec changes from the discussions, as I stated above, we’re willing to match the new spec. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAHe_1dLOsjmKLjH4t1qVJAtTD0zfUKQpLd%2BfYrgtCcNRu5ijhA%40mail.gmail.com.