W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: More best practices for RTL scripts (markup vs CSS for bidi).

From: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:49:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4B4EDA92.5040303@smontagu.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Adil Allawi <adil@diwan.com>, ntounsi@emi.ac.ma, Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
On 01/11/2010 11:35 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 11/26/2009 10:54 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
>>
>> I assume your Gecko example is using a very recent version of Gecko,
>> such as a nightly build or a beta of Firefox 3.6? I fixed this issue
>> only a few months ago.
>>
>> The HTML standard does specify what to do in this case, see
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/dirlang.html#style-bidi:
>>
>> "When a block element that does not have a dir attribute is transformed
>> to the style of an inline element by a style sheet, the resulting
>> presentation should be equivalent, in terms of bidirectional formatting,
>> to the formatting obtained by explicitly adding a dir attribute
>> (assigned the inherited value) to the transformed element."
>>
>> In practice, however, since browsers are not consistent, authors will
>> have to use CSS properties to achieve the expected results.
>
> Does this mean applying "unicode-bidi: embed" to all block-level elements?
> Because that seems like it fulfill those requirements.

I was thinking in terms of applying "unicode-bidi: embed" ad hoc 
whenever applying "display: inline" to a specific element, but applying 
it wholesale to all block-level elements will also work, of course.
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 08:49:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 January 2010 08:49:56 GMT