W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: bidi discussion list was: Bidi Markup vs Unicode control characters

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:52:18 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050815174341.073f6060@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>, Ognyan Kulev <ogi@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>
Cc: Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com>, Addison Phillips <addison.phillips@quest.com>, www-international@w3.org, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>

At 17:11 05/08/10, Tex Texin wrote:
 >
 >I prefer nesting of xml elements to reflect the semantic relationship of
 >the elements.

Me too!

 >That is not necessarily the same as the presentation relationships.

Not necessarily, but with extremely high probability. Can you provide
a reasonable counterexample?

 >Also the relationship between runs is not always to embed (or pop) a
 >level. Sometimes there will be sibling relationships, which to maintain
 >presentation ordering will need some sequencing attributes.

Could you give an example? That would make it easier to immagine
what you are speaking about.

 >(All in all,
 >I think I prefer control codes for all of this. ;-) )

In more than 99%, to be very conservative, the bidi embeddings/overrides
correspond to logical document structure. Using control codes would
only create a mess. There remains the issue of attributes, but
a) control codes in attributes are well isolated and don't interfere
    with markup
b) putting running text in attributes is a bad idea for many other reasons

Regards,    Martin. 
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 10:46:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:05 GMT