The example for "avoid short last lines" has a short last line - if that was intentional, a great touch by the writer!
Are hypens no longer acceptable?
There is no mention of it in the post. If words (in any language) can be arbitrarily long and columns can be arbitrarily narrow, we will need to solve for this anyway.
Even without those extremes, I feel that there will always be place for the good old hypen when displaying or printing text for the main purpose of readability. No need to max out on perfect "look" in every application of text.
In fact in many places one might even find columns with jagged right edges more readable -- letting you visually distinguish each line from the one above/below it easily by length alone -- and may even lend a certain aesthetic character that is the opposite of mechanical / boring / machine produced / sterile.
Of course not negating the need for a well implemented method without bugs to justify text correctly when the use case demands it.
Butterick says you should never, ever justify text without hyphenation
I’m looking at the comparison [0] and the `pretty` example is hyphenated, while greedy is not. Not sure it’s fair to compare them like that, considering we’ve had `hyphens: auto` for a while now.
Edit: it’s actually vice versa! Which I should have known because the very next paragraph says:
> But the “smart” algorithm decides to add an entire line to it, which requires inflating all the white space proportionally.
Which is exactly how the example on the right looks.
That jumped out at me too... I'm not sure if they have different hyphenation properties set though, or if the greedy justified version just doesn't wind up hyphenating anywhere in this particular case?
Unfortunately there's no live HTML demo to inspect, just the images.
Playing around with it, seems that Safari simply stops hyphenating entirely when when text-wrap is pretty, regardless of whether it's justified or not. (If you smoothly resize the browser width, it makes it pretty easy to tell if hyphens ever come up.)
Which means the image on the left seems like it might be the wrong image?
And now I wonder if text-wrap: pretty is supposed to avoid hyphenation? Are hyphens not pretty? Or is it just a partial implementation by Apple, that they haven't gotten around to supporting hyphenation for it yet?
You can get it if you carefully adjust the window width! Or there’s one example in the author’s post – the word “implementation” is hyphenated for me [1].
So it looks like the algorithm tries to minimize hyphenation, which makes sense to be honest.
Ha. Oh wow. OK, I got "implementation" to hyphenate... but only once I changed the zoom level, and only for one specific exact window width. One pixel narrower or wider, and it stopped hyphenating.
So hyphenation exists in theory, but I'm just going to go ahead and say that however it's tuned seems completely broken.
Again, I think it’s very deliberate :-) Hyphenated words are slightly harder to read, so it makes sense to avoid them – maybe not as zealously, though.
> Inexplicably, until 2025, browsers stuck with the naive greedy algorithm, subjecting generations of web users to ugly typography.
> WebKit devs, you are awesome for shipping this feature ahead of everyone else...
"While support for pretty shipped in Chrome 117, Edge 177, and Opera 103 in Fall 2023, and Samsung Internet 24 in 2024, the Chromium version is more limited in what it accomplishes. According to an article by the Chrome team, Chromium only makes adjustments to the last four lines of a paragraph. It’s focused on preventing short last lines. It also adjusts hyphenation if consecutive hyphenated lines appear at the end of a paragraph."
The article goes on to talk about how it's up to the browser (and not necessarily permanent) about how to handle the setting, and furthermore a new
value was agreed upon to do what Chromium was doing, called "text-wrap: avoid-short-last-lines".
Ah, OK. I finally got the demo to show a difference under one specific window width, where it changed the last line of a paragraph from one word to two words.
So it does exist... but yeah, barely does anything. Thank you for finding the explanation!
Amazing summary. Thank you so much!
I think the answer is in the post:
> Although Safari is the first browser to ship a non-joke implementation of text-wrap
(Emphasis mine.) Chrome is using a different algorithm for this, which probably fixes some typographic problems, but defaults to greed most of the time.
Interesting. As far as I can tell, Chrome isn't doing anything different. I can't find any window width where the checkbox makes any difference.
Edit: finally found it, see cousin comment.
> We are getting closer and closer to the cutting-edge XV-century technology. Beautiful paragraphs!
While the broader point is fine, the example to me is just bad to me: very narrow column with a lot of hyphens and identical width/no variety making it harder to anchor your eye (though colored letters are awesome and play this role)
Ok, bad rag is bad, but the ancient text goes overboard in the other direction. This looks close to the form-over-function vibe.
I’m not trying to pull your card, but can you read the language that the example is written in?
Justified text is really not good, yeah. `text-wrap: pretty` works fine with left-aligned text though!
The example for "avoid short last lines" has a short last line - if that was intentional, a great touch by the writer!
Are hypens no longer acceptable?
There is no mention of it in the post. If words (in any language) can be arbitrarily long and columns can be arbitrarily narrow, we will need to solve for this anyway.
Even without those extremes, I feel that there will always be place for the good old hypen when displaying or printing text for the main purpose of readability. No need to max out on perfect "look" in every application of text.
In fact in many places one might even find columns with jagged right edges more readable -- letting you visually distinguish each line from the one above/below it easily by length alone -- and may even lend a certain aesthetic character that is the opposite of mechanical / boring / machine produced / sterile.
Of course not negating the need for a well implemented method without bugs to justify text correctly when the use case demands it.
Butterick says you should never, ever justify text without hyphenation
https://practicaltypography.com/justified-text.html
Auto-hyphenation is part of what text-wrap: pretty does.
No, it’s not. You can turn it on or off independently.
The Webkit blog post talks about this, didn't know it had a name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)
It reminds me of one of my favorite programs, par[1].
[1]: http://www.nicemice.net/par/
I’m looking at the comparison [0] and the `pretty` example is hyphenated, while greedy is not. Not sure it’s fair to compare them like that, considering we’ve had `hyphens: auto` for a while now.
Edit: it’s actually vice versa! Which I should have known because the very next paragraph says:
> But the “smart” algorithm decides to add an entire line to it, which requires inflating all the white space proportionally.
Which is exactly how the example on the right looks.
[0]: https://matklad.github.io/2026/02/14/justifying-text-wrap-pr...
That jumped out at me too... I'm not sure if they have different hyphenation properties set though, or if the greedy justified version just doesn't wind up hyphenating anywhere in this particular case?
Unfortunately there's no live HTML demo to inspect, just the images.
Just found this demo in the Safari blog post: https://cdpn.io/pen/debug/xxvoqNM
Fascinating, thank you!
Playing around with it, seems that Safari simply stops hyphenating entirely when when text-wrap is pretty, regardless of whether it's justified or not. (If you smoothly resize the browser width, it makes it pretty easy to tell if hyphens ever come up.)
Which means the image on the left seems like it might be the wrong image?
And now I wonder if text-wrap: pretty is supposed to avoid hyphenation? Are hyphens not pretty? Or is it just a partial implementation by Apple, that they haven't gotten around to supporting hyphenation for it yet?
You can get it if you carefully adjust the window width! Or there’s one example in the author’s post – the word “implementation” is hyphenated for me [1].
So it looks like the algorithm tries to minimize hyphenation, which makes sense to be honest.
[1]: https://matklad.github.io/2026/02/14/justifying-text-wrap-pr...
Ha. Oh wow. OK, I got "implementation" to hyphenate... but only once I changed the zoom level, and only for one specific exact window width. One pixel narrower or wider, and it stopped hyphenating.
So hyphenation exists in theory, but I'm just going to go ahead and say that however it's tuned seems completely broken.
Again, I think it’s very deliberate :-) Hyphenated words are slightly harder to read, so it makes sense to avoid them – maybe not as zealously, though.
> Inexplicably, until 2025, browsers stuck with the naive greedy algorithm, subjecting generations of web users to ugly typography.
> WebKit devs, you are awesome for shipping this feature ahead of everyone else...
Um, no? Chrome shipped this feature in 2023: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/css-text-wrap-pretty
Safari isn't early shipping this, they're late. Though not as late as Firefox, admittedly.
So only 42 years after TeX instead of 44.
One less gripe out html I guess. Still a few hundred left.
Hmm, I’m looking at the demo in Chrome and don’t see any difference when I turn on `pretty`: https://cdpn.io/pen/debug/xxvoqNM
In Safari, it’s a very different look.
Yeah, very weird.
Caniuse claims it's supported in Chrome: https://caniuse.com/mdn-css_properties_text-wrap_pretty
But you're right, it very clearly isn't working.
Is it a regression? Did it break and nobody noticed?
From https://webkit.org/blog/16547/better-typography-with-text-wr...
"While support for pretty shipped in Chrome 117, Edge 177, and Opera 103 in Fall 2023, and Samsung Internet 24 in 2024, the Chromium version is more limited in what it accomplishes. According to an article by the Chrome team, Chromium only makes adjustments to the last four lines of a paragraph. It’s focused on preventing short last lines. It also adjusts hyphenation if consecutive hyphenated lines appear at the end of a paragraph."
The article goes on to talk about how it's up to the browser (and not necessarily permanent) about how to handle the setting, and furthermore a new value was agreed upon to do what Chromium was doing, called "text-wrap: avoid-short-last-lines".
Here's the article on what the Chromium version does: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/css-text-wrap-pretty/
Ah, OK. I finally got the demo to show a difference under one specific window width, where it changed the last line of a paragraph from one word to two words.
So it does exist... but yeah, barely does anything. Thank you for finding the explanation!
Amazing summary. Thank you so much!
I think the answer is in the post:
> Although Safari is the first browser to ship a non-joke implementation of text-wrap
(Emphasis mine.) Chrome is using a different algorithm for this, which probably fixes some typographic problems, but defaults to greed most of the time.
Interesting. As far as I can tell, Chrome isn't doing anything different. I can't find any window width where the checkbox makes any difference.
Edit: finally found it, see cousin comment.
> We are getting closer and closer to the cutting-edge XV-century technology. Beautiful paragraphs!
While the broader point is fine, the example to me is just bad to me: very narrow column with a lot of hyphens and identical width/no variety making it harder to anchor your eye (though colored letters are awesome and play this role)
Ok, bad rag is bad, but the ancient text goes overboard in the other direction. This looks close to the form-over-function vibe.
I’m not trying to pull your card, but can you read the language that the example is written in?
Justified text is really not good, yeah. `text-wrap: pretty` works fine with left-aligned text though!