W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [widgets] i18n <span> element VS unicode RLM/LRM

From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:15:25 +0000
Message-ID: <48C89B5D.1010003@emi.ac.ma>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Hi, i18n-WG.
> In recent feedback we received from Addison Phillips regarding the
> Widgets 1.0: Packaging specification, he suggested that WebApps should
> add a <span>-like element to our Widget Configuration Document format
> (so to allow bidi text to be declared).
>
> At our last F2F, WebApps discussed the proposition and we were left
> wondering if we can use unicode's RLM/LRM characters instead of a
> <span>-like element? 

In fact, <span>-like element with dir attribute is equivalent to RLE/LRE 
and PDF, which open a new embedding level.
You can always make use of  RLM/LRM instead of a <span>-like element to 
arrange bidi rendering, but the general purpose is not the same.

Regards, Najib

> Can i18n please advise us on this? Not having the
> <span>-like element significantly simplifies our processing model. We
> don't want to sacrifice i18n for the sake of simplicity, so we really
> need your guidance again on how to move forward.
>
> Having read "Internationalization Best Practices: Handling
> Right-to-left Scripts in XHTML and HTML Content", we are aware that
> there are problems with text editors ATM, but we are hoping the tools
> will improve as Unicode support becomes more common place (or is that
> wishful thinking?).
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
>   
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 16:15:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT