W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2010

[Bug 10815] i18n comment 10 : block elements with display:inline should get ubi instead of default dir

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:35:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P4Fv6-0002on-3b@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10815

--- Comment #7 from fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> 2010-10-08 16:35:39 UTC ---
> Now embeddings and such are inherited automatically on blocks, and so in the
> block styling, there would be an embedding

To clarify what Martin's talking about, the effect of being a block, bidi-wise,
is similar to that of being an embedding: the surrounding contents do not
affect resolution within the element, and the 'direction' of the element
determines the direction at its boundaries. (It has nothing to do with
"inheriting embeddings" or anything like that.) Furthermore, any text
reordering is confined within the boundaries of the element, which is an
important similarity to the behavior of blocks.

Both with isolation and with embedding, not only are the contents of the
element isolated from the surrounding content, but, as with a block element,
the contents of the element do not affect bidi resolution of the surrounding
content.

The difference between isolation and embedding is the effect of the element
itself on the surrounding contents. For isolation, it's treated as
neutral--effectively invisible. For embedding, it's treated as a strong
character in the direction of the embedding.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 16:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:59 UTC