[Bug 10828] i18n comment 4 : new attribute: bidibreak

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10828

Aharon Lanin <aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|NEEDSINFO                   |

--- Comment #11 from Aharon Lanin <aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.com> 2010-10-18 11:50:25 UTC ---
I have heard that part of what HTML5 is about is bringing what the spec says
and what the browsers do more into alignment.

What IE and Webkit do for <br> is treat it as a bidi paragraph break, despite
the spec saying otherwise. This is not about to change, because what RTL users
expect from <br> is bidi paragraph separation.

For the same reason, Firefox regularly gets bug reports about its treatment of
<br> as bidi whitespace. As far as I understand, the developers there would
like to accede but don't want to do so as long as the spec says otherwise.

The results is lack of interoperability that has lasted for many years and will
continue to last as long as <br> is specified to be bidi whitespace.

And <br> is used all the time. One instance of use is not even due to poorly
educated users, but to the automated translation of plain-text newlines into
mark-up. One example of that is Gmail, which generates a <br> every time one
enters a newline in a rich-text message. This does not even sound to me like
the abuse of <br>. How is Gmail to know whether the author meant the newline to
signify the end of a paragraph or simply the means to force the wrapping of a
line (as in when manually transforming a paragraph of text to which one is
replying into short lines with an > at the beginning of each)?

To leave things as they are is to perpetuate the current lack of
interoperability.

-- 
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 Monday, 18 October 2010 11:50:27 UTC