- From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:23:48 +0000
- To: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
- CC: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, Tex Texin <textexin@xencraft.com>, Craig Cummings <crc@yahoo-inc.com>, Norbert Lindenberg <norbert.lindenberg@yahoo-inc.com>, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@gmail.com>, Xiaomei Ji <xji@google.com>, Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Adil Allawi <adil@diwan.com>, Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>, Mark Davis <mark@macchiato.com>, Bob Jung <bjung@google.com>
Simon Montagu wrote:
> 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).
>
May be you are right.
Firefox is the only browser (I don't test IE) that render the following
example correctly (i.e. CSS unicode-bidi** is equivalent to HTML dir
markup):
with the style
<style type="text/css">
.a p {display:inline; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed}
.b p {display:inline;}
</style>
the HTML code (case-1):
<div class="a">
<p>display</p>
<p>in</p>
<p>line</p>
</div>
gives (correct)
"line in display"
while (case-2):
<div class="b" dir="rtl">
<p>display</p>
<p>in</p>
<p>line</p>
</div>
gives (right justified) for other browsers
"display in line"
Especially, when <p>display</p> is replaced by <p>dis ARABIC play</p>
The content inherits of the rtl directionality.
We already talked about this. See
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2009OctDec/0107.html)
Please try it here: http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/displayInline.html
Najib
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 12:27:15 UTC