[Standards] Council Minutes 2020-05-27

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Jun 1 17:05:59 UTC 2020

Sorry, last rapid reply to my own email, I promise:

Apparently there is U+2060: word joiner which is the exact same thing as
a ZWSP except that it implies no line breaks. This has just about
exactly the semantics we want, and seems like it would be a good
candidate for how you disable styling on a specific piece of text.

I think I would prefer to have this over something that has to be
namespaced and registered. It's more flexible, would make it easier to
implement eg. a toolbar with bold and italic buttons (things get styled
by default if you type them, if you highlight the whole thing and remove
the styling it could cycle through just removing the styling but leaving
the *'s, or removing the *'s etc.

What do others think?


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 12:59, Sam Whited wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 11:58, Marvin W wrote:
> > PS: As a sending client you can already opt-out using a hack: By
> >     prepending the opening (and, if needed, closing) styling
> >     directive with zero-width space (U+200B)
> I hadn't actually thought of this. I'll need to think about it more,
> but we might recommend this in the spec since this is the exact use
> case zero width spaces are for (things that are word boundaries but
> where spaces don't necessarily go, between characters that shouldn't
> be put together in connected scripts, etc. My only concern would be
> that they also have the meaning "you can add a soft break here" which
> is probably *not* what you want in this case.
> I'll think about it more, but this is definitely at least close to the
> point of a zero-width space and might be worth documenting.
> —Sam
> --
> Sam Whited

Sam Whited

More information about the Standards mailing list