Re: bdi definition (Additional requirements for Bidi in HTML, sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.3)

On 06/06/2010 06:50 PM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote:
> Separation, on the other hand, has almost no precedent in today's browsers.
> The only exception is an embedded block element with display:inline, which
> until recently all browsers treated as a normal inline element, with no
> separation or isolation. Firefox recently discovered that this is not
> according to spec, and changed it to use separation. I am not sure if using
> separation vs isolation was a conscious choice or what considerations went
> into it.
>
>
> *** Mozilla engineers: could you shed some light? ***
>

The distinction between separation and isolation was certainly nowhere 
in my mind when I implemented the current bidi behaviour of embedded 
block elements with display:inline in Firefox. All that I actually did 
was to give all HTML block elements "unicode-bidi: embed" in the User 
Agent Stylesheet, which when the element is transformed to 
"display:inline" has the same effect as "explicitly adding a dir 
attribute (assigned the inherited value) to the transformed element", as 
called for in the spec.

(An edge case that I have only now considered is when the block element 
already has an explicit dir attribute of its own. Should the inherited 
value override this or not? This is probably a moot point, since I agree 
with you that this part of the spec should be reformulated in terms of 
bdi anyway).

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 11:26:44 UTC