W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:15:10 -0700
Message-ID: <4534F37E.4000904@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>
CC: atom-syntax@imc.org, www-international@w3.org, public-i18n-geo@w3.org

The key challenge with using ITS in Atom is its complexity and scope.
Atom simply doesn't need to do that much.

- James

Nicolas Krebs wrote:
> [snip]
> XHTML 1.0 is the only specification which is not a working draft, but its 
> dir attribute does not allow "lro" and "rlo" values. 
> 
> I do not guess XHTML 2.0 will be usable before a long time. 
> 
> What are the roadmap for "Atom Bidirectional Extension" and 
> "Internationalization Tag Set 1.0" ? On the today speed, when are they 
> sheduled, when can we hope, that it will be internet^W xml standard and 
> published as "W3C Recommendation" or "IETF RFC" ? 
> 
> Could it be avoided having two spec for the same purpose ? 
> 
> See also 
> - Richard Ishida, "What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline 
> markup", http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/
> - W3C Internationalization Tag Set working group, "Best Practices for XML 
> Internationalization", section 2.2 "Provide a way to specify text directionality", 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#DevDir
> - James Snell, "Adding bidi support to Atom", http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=470
> - James Snell, "Atom Bidirectional Extension", http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=484
> - "PaceAtomBidi", http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAtomBidi
> - "FAQ: Bidi formatting codes vs. markup in (X)HTML", 
> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-controls
> - "FAQ: CSS vs. markup for bidi support", 
> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-css-markup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:15:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:08 GMT