[Bug 24006] normativity issues in bidi integration text

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

--- Comment #3 from fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> ---
Wrt the paragraph beginning "In general...", it has been revised:

  # In CSS, the paragraph embedding level must be set (following rule HL1)
  # 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. There is, however, one exception: when the
  # computed unicode-bidi of the paragraph’s containing block is
  # 'plaintext', the Unicode heuristics in P2 and P3 are used as
  # described in [UAX9], without the HL1 override.

Wrt referring to the HL* rules, the bidi spec does not appear to require
such references, only that modifications to the algorithm conform to
those rules. However I have added the references as you request to help
clarify the intent.

Wrt using "must" everywhere, whether you agree or disagree with the style,
it is not a habit of the CSS specs to do so, and statements without the
modifier are nonetheless normative per
  http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#conventions

> > is "the bidi control codes assigned to the end" defined anywhere?
> 
> Yes, the control codes are defined under the various unicode-bidi
> values [..] But I agree that some sort of reference is needed.

Since this sentence is only a few paragraphs below the section that
defines them, I haven't added a link. But all of them are now talking
about rule HL3, so this will help create that correspondance.

> I now realize, however, that the spec does not make it 100% clear for
> isolate-override whether it "combines" the isolate on the outside of
> the override or vice-versa.

This is now specified explicitly.

Comment #2 is handled separately, see thread at
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0267.htm

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

Please let me know if this sufficiently addresses your comment.

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

Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 07:04:11 UTC