[Bug 10815] i18n comment 10 : block elements with display:inline should get ubi instead of default dir


Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

--- Comment #6 from Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> 2010-10-08 10:13:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > I think there is an expectation that
> > <div style="display: inline"></div>
> > renders exactly equivalent to <span>,
> > under default styling.
> That expectation, reasonable as it sounds, did not prevent an explicit
> requirement in the HTML 4 spec that runs counter to it
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/dirlang.html#style-bidi):
> "When a block element that does not have a dir attribute is transformed to the
> style of an inline element by a style sheet, the resulting presentation should
> be equivalent, in terms of bidirectional formatting, to the formatting obtained
> by explicitly adding a dir attribute (assigned the inherited value) to the
> transformed element".

I think it would be helpful for everybody to understand why this text was put
in (I think it was mostly me who wrote it). The assumption was that <div>s
would be displayed as blocks, but there might be styling variants that would
take the *same* document and style some (or all) <div>s as inline. The main
example was actually not <div>s, but lists. Now embeddings and such are
inherited automatically on blocks, and so in the block styling, there would be
an embedding, which then would suddenly vanish if the styling changed to

So the whole provision is not for a case like <div style="display:
inline"></div> (why would you need that when you have <span> in the first
place), but for a case like
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="blocks.css" title="Blocky" />
<link rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" href="inline-blocks.css"
title="Inliny" />

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 Friday, 8 October 2010 10:13:51 UTC