- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:35:14 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 09:05 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote: > I must admit I am uneasy about putting anything out of scope at this > moment. For example, call me naïve, but my hope is that, aside from > terminology, Arabic, Hebrew, and other rtl writing systems may not be > all that different apart from a carefully chosen terminology. They aren't, although the definition of a baseline has to be made carefully, maths (even simple numbers) need special handling, and of course whitespace is treated very differently with the Arabic script. So there are a lot of details to consider. Typography is about attention to detail. RenderX, as I understand it, is quite widely used for formatting (using XSL-FO with of course embedded CSS properties) of Arabic and Chinese, and mixed Arabic, Chinese and English such as you might find in Malaysia. I remember a question to the XSL-FO WG at one point about where to put the underline on a right-to-left quotation embedded in vertical text. There's also stuff in XSL-FO for mixing e.g. Hindi and Arabic. So there's expertise floating around not too far away, and documents for Arabic and Hebrew typesetting would share a lot with those for Latin script Western languages, kashida and cantillation notwithstanding :) Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 20:37:46 UTC