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

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:31:58 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P8gGM-0001Kl-LV@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10828

Adil <adil@diwan.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |adil@diwan.com

--- Comment #18 from Adil <adil@diwan.com> 2010-10-20 21:31:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> If this request is just to change the <br> element's definition to match IE,
> then that is definitely something we can do. Should I just change the spec to
> instead say "A br element must separate paragraphs for the purposes of the
> Unicode bidirectional algorithm. [BIDI]" ?

I would like to see <br> defined as paragraph separator by default. However,
this alone does not solve a specific use case that affects my work. I am
developing a web app that displays text extracted from a book or a newspaper in
a similar way to this site:
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1118868. 

The requirement is to match exactly the line breaks in the original document
regardless of the font width. The problem is, for mixed rtl-ltr text, I need to
insert a line break that is not a bidi paragraph break.

If <br> is redefined as a bidi paragraph break instead of a line-break then, in
this case, the <br> will give the wrong reordering for the broken line.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 20 October 2010 21:32:04 UTC

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