[Bug 24006] New: normativity issues in bidi integration text

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24006

            Bug ID: 24006
           Summary: normativity issues in bidi integration text
           Product: CSS
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Writing Modes
          Assignee: fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net
          Reporter: ian@hixie.ch
        QA Contact: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp

(from bug 23260)

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes

> "In general, the paragraph embedding level is set according to the direction
> property of the paragraph’s containing block rather than by the heuristic
> given in steps P2 and P3 of the Unicode algorithm.

That's non-normative (no MUST). And it doesn't use the HL* rules to define the
override formally as the bidi spec requests.


> [UAX9] When the computed
> unicode-bidi of the paragraph’s containing block is plaintext, however, the
> Unicode heuristics (rules P2 and P3) are used instead."

That's non-normative (no MUST).


> "If an inline element is broken around a bidi paragraph boundary (e.g. if
> split by a block or forced paragraph break), then the bidi control codes
> assigned to the end of the element are added before the interruption and the
> codes assigned to the start of the element are added after it."

That's non-normative (no MUST). Also it's vague — is "the bidi control codes
assigned to the end" defined anywhere? Does it handle nested elements? How
about bidi formatting codes that come from the block? (e.g. a block-level bdo)


Overall, the spec's bidi integration should be changed to more formally refer
to the HL* rules in the bidi spec, and to follow the bidi spec's rules on how
to integrate a higher-level language with the bidi algorithm, and to make it
clearer what is normative and what is merely informative.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:31:53 UTC