Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: unbreakable hyphen [NH]

Expand Messages
  • Scott Fordin
    IMHO, you really do want to stick to the standard set of W3-approved HTML tags for whatever version of HTML you re coding to. Avoid browser-specific extensions
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
      IMHO, you really do want to stick to the standard set
      of W3-approved HTML tags for whatever version of HTML
      you're coding to. Avoid browser-specific extensions
      like the plague... Please!!

      Having said this, remember that the <td> and <th>
      tags do accept the nowrap option, which is W3-approved
      and does pretty much the same thing as <nobr>.

      Regards,

      Scott

      Paul Lucas wrote:

      > One thing to remember about the <nobr></nobr> tag is that even though it
      > currently seems to work in most browsers because it is not a part of any
      > standard it could suddenly cease to be supported without notice in the future.
      >
      > More important is that no document containing the <nobr> tag will ever be
      > able to pass the W3C validation test (http://validator.w3.org/) for HTML
      > 4.01 or XHTML - not even at the loose, transitional level which "includes
      > presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
      > support for style sheets matures". Thus it cannot be used in any document
      > on any site which needs to be standards compliant such as a federal
      > government web site.
      >
      > If you really must you can achieve the same thing by using non-breaking
      > spaces ( ) between all of the words that need to be on the same line
      > and although the markup will look ugly it will pass the W3C HTML or XHTML
      > validation tests.
      >
      > In general though it is not usually a good idea to try to force
      > presentation onto content as what looks nice on a pc/browser may not work
      > so well with an audible screen reader or a braille browser and enforced
      > long lines can be really messy on PDAs and web enabled cell phones with
      > three inch square screens.
      >
      > -Paul
      >
      > At 8/13/02 05:30 AM, you wrote:
      >
      >>>In fact NOBR was never part of any specification but has been around for
      >>>ever and is understood by most (all?) browsers.
      >>>
      >> The <.NOBR> trick is included in the Compendium's coding notes.
      >>NOBR was one of the original elements pre-WWW standards. We used to just
      >>call it HTML. It's still not part of the standards that I can find but is
      >>one of those "heritage" elements. If anyone stops supporting it, it will be
      >>Mozilla 5+/Netscape 6+ first, since these both profess stringent standards
      >>adherence. Most everyone else is following MSIE's element list.
      >>
      >> The moral of the story -- even <.NOBR> is suspect and may enjoy
      >>increasingly limited support.
      >>
      >> Good luck. When you figure this one out, let me know. I'd like to
      >>include it on my hyphenation page.
      >>
      >> Ron Woodall
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • loro
      ... The problem is that this doesn t always work. As for what Fay wanted, an unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn t break is
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 13, 2002
        At 17:52 2002.08.13, Paul Lucas wrote:
        >If you really must you can achieve the same thing by using non-breaking
        >spaces ( ) between all of the words that need to be on the same line
        >and although the markup will look ugly it will pass the W3C HTML or XHTML
        >validation tests.


        The problem is that this doesn't always work. As for what Fay wanted, an
        unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn't
        break is the minus sign (− or −) but since Fay wants to support
        Netscape 4 that one is out too...

        Lotta
      • Ron Woodall
        ... The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes − properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an en-dash (nutt)
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
          At 05:43 AM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:

          >The problem is that this doesn't always work. As for what Fay wanted, an
          >unbreakable hyphen. The only hyphen like character I know that doesn't
          >break is the minus sign (− or −) but since Fay wants to support
          >Netscape 4 that one is out too...

          The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
          properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
          en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
          at all.

          Well, it appears that we have a solution for recent technology.
          Thanks for pointing this out Lotta.

          Ron Woodall

          ---------------------------------------
          Ron Woodall
          nor@...

          The Compendium of HTML Elements
          "your essential web publishing resource"

          - available at/disponible à:
          http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
          http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
        • loro
          ... That s interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little higher up
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
            At 15:55 2002.08.14, Ron Woodall wrote:
            > The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
            >properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
            >en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
            >at all.

            That's interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the
            minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
            higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
            en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
            "-" inserted with the key board.

            On a side note, in both CSS1 and 2 specifications it says that the
            white-space property only applies to block level elements. I learnt
            recently that this is wrong (which is good). It applies to all elements
            which is also stated in the errata (both specs). But who reads those? Now
            when they have published a working draft for CSS2.1 this is clearly stated
            under "Changes":

            "Section 16.6 Whitespace: the 'white-space' property
            The 'white-space' property applies to all elements, not just block-level
            elements."
            http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/changes.html#q29

            Great. But in the property description it still says:

            "Applies to: block-level elements"
            http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/text.html#propdef-white-space

            Err...hope they notice before this one is made permanent.

            White-space and hyphens - what a mess! And then we haven't even mentioned
            ­ ;-)


            Lotta
          • Rudolf Horbas
            Lotta, Ron, ... Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
              Lotta, Ron,

              > Ron Woodall wrote:
              >
              >> The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
              >>properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
              >>en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
              >>at all.
              > loro wrote:
              > That's interesting. What version of IE do you have? I run IE5 on 2K and the
              > minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
              > higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
              > en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
              > "-" inserted with the key board.

              Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
              system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
              found that many do not contain all the possible types.

              There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
              show different results than Netscape 4.x, which would be different than
              the discrepancies on Win 9x between the browsers.

              For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
              clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
              Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
              would not support them.
              I even had to remove € (Euro) from some important pages and put
              back EUR there -- Netscape on Mac would show the literal € ...

              Although it is possible, even on a western PC, to show Arabic text in a
              browser, I have seen many Arabic websites that settle for just --
              _graphics_!

              All this is still to come -- hopefully.

              Rudi
            • loro
              Hi Rudolf! ... Don t know. I haven t thought about this earlier. Courier New and Arial render the minus much the same in IE5 and Moz 1.0 for me. Opera differs.
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                Hi Rudolf!

                >Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
                >system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                >found that many do not contain all the possible types.

                Don't know. I haven't thought about this earlier. Courier New and Arial
                render the minus much the same in IE5 and Moz 1.0 for me. Opera differs.
                Could be OS or service packs too, I guess.

                >There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
                >show different results

                Yeah, IE5 Mac is a totally different, and I hear better, rendering engine.
                The man who's responsible for it was also the one who first figured out a
                CSS "hack" for IE Win's broken box model - that figures!

                >For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
                >clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
                >Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
                >would not support them.

                I remember - where's that page gone? Someone on this list asked for it not
                long ago. To me this whole unicode thing is still confusing and scary.
                Guess it takes a while to get used to.

                Lotta
              • Rudolf Horbas
                Hi Lotta and all, ... Oops, seems I m not following the list close enough. I just checked -- seems the provider deleted it, though I m still paying (they were
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 14, 2002
                  Hi Lotta and all,

                  > I remember - where's that page gone? Someone on this list asked for it not
                  > long ago.

                  Oops, seems I'm not following the list close enough. I just checked --
                  seems the provider deleted it, though I'm still paying (they were taken
                  over by another company couple weeks ago) :-( .
                  But there's got to be a backup disk somewhere, wait ... (rustle, rustle,
                  fiddle, shove...) It's online again, at my new provider (I've got to
                  remember to give the other one the boot):
                  http://www.hypotext.de/unicode/

                  Hope everything's where it's supposed to be. It's all plain static HTML,
                  though I'm planning re-doing this with php/MySql (easier to maintain)
                  one day.

                  Strange: A lot of the icons appear in the wrong places ... I'll have to
                  figure that out. Meanwhile, just trust the characters that Your browsers
                  can render ...

                  > To me this whole unicode thing is still confusing and scary.
                  > Guess it takes a while to get used to.

                  Aw, don't be scared! :-)
                  I wouldn't get used to it too much yet, though, because many of these
                  characters are not properly supported yet ...

                  G'night,
                  Rudi
                • Ron Woodall
                  Hi Lotta: ... Running MSIE 5.0 and 6.0. My 5.5 got killed when I upgraded one of my garbage systems. ... Is this actually correct? When you apply white space
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                    Hi Lotta:

                    At 05:06 PM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:
                    >At 15:55 2002.08.14, Ron Woodall wrote:
                    > > The problem with this solution is that MSIE 5+ recognizes −
                    > >properly and handles it properly. However, Mozilla 5/Netscape 6 inserts an
                    > >en-dash (nutt) rather than a hyphen. Netscape 4.73 doesn't recognize −
                    > >at all.
                    >
                    >That's interesting. What version of IE do you have?

                    Running MSIE 5.0 and 6.0. My 5.5 got killed when I upgraded one of
                    my garbage systems.

                    > I run IE5 on 2K and the
                    >minus looks exactly as in Moz. Same length as an en-dash but a little
                    >higher up - rather ugly. In Opera the minus is a little longer than the
                    >en-dash (or rather the en-dash is short) and both are rendered lower than a
                    >"-" inserted with the key board.
                    >
                    >On a side note, in both CSS1 and 2 specifications it says that the
                    >white-space property only applies to block level elements. I learnt
                    >recently that this is wrong (which is good). It applies to all elements
                    >which is also stated in the errata (both specs). But who reads those? Now
                    >when they have published a working draft for CSS2.1 this is clearly stated
                    >under "Changes":

                    Is this actually correct? When you apply "white space" to in-line
                    elements, they inherit the spacing from the parent. Imposing spacing
                    changes on in-line elements may produce some very undesirable results.
                    Comments?

                    >"Section 16.6 Whitespace: the 'white-space' property
                    >The 'white-space' property applies to all elements, not just block-level
                    >elements."
                    >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/changes.html#q29
                    >
                    >Great. But in the property description it still says:
                    >
                    >"Applies to: block-level elements"
                    >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/text.html#propdef-white-space

                    I'd wait a bit longer before referencing 2.1. There are still some
                    gyrations to go through ( I think.)

                    >Err...hope they notice before this one is made permanent.

                    Don't depend on it. Write them and tell them about it. There
                    should be a mailto somewhere on the document.

                    >White-space and hyphens - what a mess! And then we haven't even mentioned
                    >­ ;-)

                    Big problem here. Using the & #173; requires the use of a
                    hyphenation dictionary. Which one?

                    Ron Woodall

                    ---------------------------------------
                    Ron Woodall
                    nor@...

                    The Compendium of HTML Elements
                    "your essential web publishing resource"

                    - available at/disponible à:
                    http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                    http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
                  • Ron Woodall
                    Hi Rudolph and Lotta and Congregation: ... Several points here: yes, every font is different and there are even differences from one font size to another. Alot
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                      Hi Rudolph and Lotta and Congregation:

                      At 07:15 PM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote:

                      >Is it possible that the rendering depends on the fonts installed on Your
                      >system? When I played around with unicode fonts a couple months ago, I
                      >found that many do not contain all the possible types.

                      Several points here: yes, every font is different and there are
                      even differences from one font size to another. Alot depends on the
                      placement of the pixels when the font is rendered. If the hyphen character
                      renders perfectly across a two pixel wide horizontal row, it will be quite
                      dominant. However, if the character renders only over one row and is
                      aliased across the pixel rows above and below, it will seem somewhat
                      feeble. Here's a test: take this message and carefully scroll the scrollbar
                      up or down one pixel. Careful don't sneeze or breath. At some point this
                      pair of hyphens "--" will seem distorted. This will be more easily
                      recognized in larger fonts but more dramatic on smaller fonts, magnified.

                      >There also were differences between different OS'ses: MSIE on MAC would
                      >show different results than Netscape 4.x, which would be different than
                      >the discrepancies on Win 9x between the browsers.

                      Big time! There will even be differences from system to system.
                      The change of a video card or a monitor makes a difference. I have a
                      ViewSonic E773 on one video card and a pair of Optiquest Q71s on two other
                      video cards. All of the video cards are identical. There is a slight
                      difference between the ViewSonic and the Optiquests but not much between
                      the two Optiquests. Technologically the ViewSonic and Optiquests are identical.

                      >For a while I was extremely fascinated by the subject and made lots of
                      >clip libraries and clipbars with all these strange types (Hebrew,
                      >Arabic, Greek, symbols), but it was frustrating to see that many systems
                      >would not support them.
                      >I even had to remove € (Euro) from some important pages and put
                      >back EUR there -- Netscape on Mac would show the literal € ...

                      Welcome to the frustrating world of browsers. You haven't seen the
                      half of it.

                      Ron Woodall

                      ---------------------------------------
                      Ron Woodall
                      nor@...

                      The Compendium of HTML Elements
                      "your essential web publishing resource"

                      - available at/disponible à:
                      http://au.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Australia)
                      http://www.htmlcompendium.org/index.htm (Europe and North America)
                    • loro
                      ... Yes, because it s legit (and has been all the dame damn them) to write .nobr { white-space: nowrap } blah blah Rigby-Smythe
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 15, 2002
                        At 15:42 2002.08.15, Ron Woodall wrote:
                        > Is this actually correct? When you apply "white space" to in-line
                        >elements, they inherit the spacing from the parent. Imposing spacing
                        >changes on in-line elements may produce some very undesirable results.
                        >Comments?

                        Yes, because it's legit (and has been all the dame damn' them) to write

                        .nobr { white-space: nowrap }
                        blah blah <span class="nobr">Rigby-Smythe</span> blah blah


                        >I'd wait a bit longer before referencing 2.1. There are still some
                        >gyrations to go through ( I think.)

                        It's in the old errata. It has been permitted all the time. The browsers
                        apply it to in-line content too there is no problem really.
                        Section 16.6 here:
                        http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html

                        Lotta
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.