Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

That's certainly a strong option.

- James

James Holderness wrote:
> 
> If you're going to require a separate namespace for bidi support, maybe
> it's best to use XHTML 1.0 and just toss out the lro and rlo values. I
> know I was originally pushing for those to be included, but now that
> I've seen how inconsistent the bdo support is in browsers I think
> they're probably going to be a waste of time. Nobody is going to get
> them right.
> 
> Regards
> James
> 
>