- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:12:29 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: ishida@w3.org, public-html-comments@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 ishida@w3.org wrote: >> Comment 4 >> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0802-html5/ >> >> Comment: Please consider allowing two new attribute values for the >> \"dir\" attribute: \'rlo\' and \'lro\'for dir. You do not need to remove >> the bdo element, but the new values will allow content authors to >> proceed to a scenario we described in the ITS 1.0 specification >> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-its-20070403/#directionality], It will >> also provide some additional power to the authors, since they will be >> able to attach dir=\"lro\" to a block element. > > Could you elaborate on the use case here? Why would this be better than > the <bdo> element? Is the improvement enough to warrant the cost? > > I looked at the ITS spec but could not see any reason to encourage authors > to do block-level direction overriding. I'll note that CSS doesn't allow overrides to cross block-level boundaries. <div style="direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: override;"> This will be RTL override. <p>This will remain LTR.</p> </div> ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 22:14:16 UTC