W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2006

RE: bidi-override scope in CSS2 and CSS 2.1

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:49:37 -0000
To: <www-international@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: "'Steven Pemberton'" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Message-ID: <00f801c6fdd5$b7d09780$6501a8c0@w3cishida>

Taking into account the previous mails on this topic, I produced a brief
summary-so-far of my thoughts wrt CSS specifically at
http://www.w3.org/International/notes/notes-rlo-blocks-css.php

I would like to take the discussion further, and to this end will send out
separate notes on what I see as the main outstanding issues.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nelson (ATC)
> Sent: 25 October 2006 00:12
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: FW: bidi-override scope in CSS2 and CSS 2.1
> 
> 
> I responded to the mail on 19 September with following:
>  
> Actually, because 'unicode-bidi' is not inherited, the output 
> would be right aligned as below:
> 
>                     txet enilni emoS
> 
> enil rehtona no txet enilne erom dna
> 
>                  A paragraph of text
> 
>                txet enilni erom emoS 
> 
>  
> I would assume that the contents of the block level element 
> could be marked up as Richard indicated. The <bdo> is defined 
> as an in-line element. However, the intent with CSS should be 
> to affect the content of any element.
> 
> What will XHTML2 do if CSS is not present? In HTML we 
> recommend that people use dir and <bdo> instead of stylesheet 
> in case the stylesheet is not applied when bidi markup is important. 
> 
> 
> The dir property in HTML 4.01 only has ltr | rtl. The example 
> given has "rlo". From point of view the dir property should 
> never have the "lro"
> or "rlo" meaning. Those are behavior overrides and are not 
> things that should be encouraged for normal document 
> behavior. We have spent many years to try to move away from 
> visual Hebrew. Let's encourage people to use Unicode in 
> logical order and avoid having to do this kind of 
> behavior...except as needed to support legacy documents.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 16:50:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:47 GMT