W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-bidi@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: The elements to which unicode-bidi:isolate applies

From: Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:14:46 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=qiO5Ao43RUjeoZFG_fZ_oko1VoA+uzE_mDh6b@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
The spec says "uninterrupted by a forced (bidi class B) line break or block
boundary".

According to the proposal (sections 3.1 and 3.3), <br> (by default) and
<div>...</div> form UBA paragraph breaks, i.e. those bidi class B line
breaks and block boundaries.

But unicode-bidi:isolate says that when it's applied to an element, it acts
as U+FFFC, an ON in its surrounding paragraph. So, is <br ubi> or a <div ubi
/> a B or an ON? It is quite easy to think that it is in fact an ON.
However, during the f2f, we explicitly said ubi does not have any effect on
non-inline elements.

Aharon

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> On 09/26/2010 08:43 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote:
> >  > The spec says
> >  >
> >  >  # User agents that support bidirectional text must apply the Unicode
> >  >  # bidirectional algorithm to every sequence of inline boxes
> >  >  # uninterrupted by a forced (bidi class B) line break or block
> boundary.
> >  >  # This sequence forms the "paragraph" unit in the bidirectional
> algorithm.
> >  >
> >  > In what way is this not sufficient to address your concerns?
> >
> > Taken by itself, it is perfectly explicit and sufficient.
> >
> > The problem is that the unicode-bidi:isolate spec is also perfectly
> > explicit and sufficient, and, it seems to me, conflicts with the above:
> >
> > for the purpose of bidi resolution in its containing
> > paragraph (if any), the [unicode-bidi:isolate] element itself is treated
> > as if it were an Object Replacement Character (U+FFFC).
> >
> > When both specs apply, I think it should be either implicitly obvious or
> > explicitly stated which one wins. I do not think it is implicitly
> > obvious, so I would like to state it explicitly.
>
> I'm not seeing the conflict.
>
> ~fantasai
>
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 11:15:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 September 2010 11:15:43 GMT