- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 20:32:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10812
Aharon Lanin <aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.co
| |m
--- Comment #3 from Aharon Lanin <aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.com> 2010-10-06 20:32:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't understand what HTML has to do here.
>
> Could you give an example that doesn't use CSS that demonstrates the ambiguity
> in the spec today?
Here is an example. Uppercase Latin letters are used to represent RTL
characters:
<textarea dir=rtl>
1. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN html.
2. css IS IMPORTANT TOO.
</textarea>
The correct display should be:
.html NRAEL OT TNATROPMI SI TI .1
.OOT TNATROPMI SI css .2
Currently, because the bidi behavior of line breaks in <textarea> has not been
explicitly specified, the display in Firefox and Opera is:
html. NRAEL OT TNATROPMI SI TI .1
.OOT TNATROPMI SI 2. css
This is unreadable.
The exact same example could have been given with <pre> instead of <textarea>,
and that is why I originally formulated this bug as "In elements where line
breaks are not collapsed, e.g. <textarea> and <pre>, line breaks should
constitute UBA paragraph breaks."
However, I then realized that <div style="white-space:pre"> should also be
covered, just like <pre>, and replaced "<pre>" with "elements with
white-space:pre|pre-line|pre-wrap".
As you point out, that was a mistake: the part about elements with
white-space:pre|pre-line|pre-wrap should only be in the CSS spec. The HTML spec
should just speak of <textarea> and <pre>.
--
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 Wednesday, 6 October 2010 20:32:52 UTC