W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2010

Re: bidi embedding for block-level elements

From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:41:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4C4A6F13.4080405@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 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 7/23/2010 6:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>   
>> Forcing an embedding regardless of directionality change seems not quite the
>> right solution to me. If I understand this correctly, merely by nesting
>> inline elements in a completely RTL document, you suddenly would need to run
>> the bidi reordering - with no visible effect.
>>     
>
> No, inline elements don't trigger this.  Only block elements,
> list-items, and table elements.  The only way to trigger problems is
> to take a ton of block-level elements, make them display:inline, and
> nest them.  
Like insanely nested lists...
> That's an extremely minority position, to say the least.
>   
Yep. In that case, 30 might be a safe limit.
> And if, for whatever reason, an author did need to do it, they can
> correct it themselves by also setting unicode-bidi.
>   
My feeling will be that it will occur so rarely that few people will be 
able to recognize the real nature when this happens to them.

Thanks for clarifying this for me,

A./
> ~TJ
>
>
>   
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 04:42:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT