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

Something like xml:dir (was: Re: [css3-writing-modes] direction vs. writing mode in markup vs. style)

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:43:39 +0900
Message-ID: <4CC66A8B.3030704@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
On 2010/10/26 2:54, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:59 AM, John Cowan<cowan@ccil.org>  wrote:

>> Hmm.  Do you want the XML Core WG to take up the idea?  We own the
>> xml: namespace, and we aren't that busy these days.

I wouldn't want that people talk about something like xml:dir as "not 
exactly a good idea, but the XML WG wasn't too busy, so they cooked that 
up, too". Please think about it on the merits. Also, please think 
carefully about what to do to make sure that designers of XML 
vocabularies will use it in the places it makes sense, and won't use it 
in the places that don't make sense.

> That actually sounds good in general, though see the discussion in the
> HTMLWG surrounding the changes suggested by the "Additional
> Requirements for bidi in HTML" group.

Yes, I'd definitely wait for that discussion to settle down (or 
participate if you are interested). In addition, please carefully 
analyze what an XML vocabulary that is very data-oriented (as opposed to 
document-oriented) might need. The original (ca. 1995) design for bidi 
in HTML was aimed only at static documents; the current additional 
efforts try to cover more dynamic documents and therefore cover data in 
one way or another, and that may or may not be enough.

> (This does bring up potentially painful issues similar to @lang vs
> xml:lang, or charset handling, but if it's handled in a similar way it
> will at least be usable.)

I hope it will not be handled in a similar way. The problem with 
xml:lang in (X)HTML was that people assumed because there was an 
xml:lang, that needed to be used, and they also worried about 
interpretation of the same document as HTML, so lang was also required. 
The right way is to use something like xml:dir for new XML vocabularies, 
and let HTML and XHTML stay with the current unprefixed attributes. All 
other XML vocabularies that already have some bidi mechanisms should 
also stay with the attributes (or elements) they already have.

Another concern is that for bidi attributes in HTML, there is a default 
stylesheet. So would we need a default stylesheet for XML to cover 
something like xml:dir?

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 05:44:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT