- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:45:18 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #13 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-11-02 21:45:17 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale:
I don't think that having an attribute for each freeform text attribute to
specify its direction (and presumably another to specify its language) is a
scalable solution or particularly good language design.
I don't see why we'd discourage people from using bidi formatting characters in
freeform (markup-free) text. Bidi named character references seem reasonable to
me (but file another bug if you want them). I don't really follow why you'd
need to dynamically change the direction of an "alt" attribute or why doing so
is easier with an attribute than using bidi formatting characters. Also, with
regard to using the latter, they don't have to be invisible if we use character
references (named or numeric).
The problem described also seems already solvable using nested elements.
In conclusion, I maintain that the conclusion drawn in comment 3 still holds.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:45:21 UTC