W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: bidi embedding for block-level elements

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:42:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4C4A0CD1.5000604@inkedblade.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>, www-html@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/23/2010 01:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, fantasai wrote:
>>
>> <selector representing all HTML5 block-level elements>  {
>>    display: block;      /* I assume you already have this somewhere */
>>    unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */
>> }
>>
>> <selector representing all HTML5 list-item elements>  {
>>    display: list-item;  /* Assumed to exist already */
>>    unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */
>> }
>>
>> title, table, tbody, thead, tfoot, tr, td, th {
>>    unicode-bidi: embed;
>> }
>
> This would mean you couldn't have more than about 60 inline<div>s nested
> inside each other without bidi breaking down. Is that an acceptable risk?
> It seems like it would be a weird thing to tell authors.

I think it's an acceptable risk. 60 levels of nesting on a block
element that's been set to "display: inline" seems like a rather
odd case to hit.

The risk of messed up reordering due to /not/ isolating the block
content is, I suspect, much higher than the risk of running out
of bidi embedding levels due to nested "display: inline" DIVs.

I agree it's a weird thing to tell authors. But hardly any of them
will ever need to care.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 21:43:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 July 2010 21:43:40 GMT