- From: Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:02:14 +0300
- To: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>, Adil Allawi <adil@diwan.com>, Shachar Shemesh <shachar@shemesh.biz>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikrdY=60ddJDQAYFDd3Gsk=XeA0Zg3QvQQUxTp7@mail.gmail.com>
I've had sufficient negative feedback on suggesting a new element to kill that idea. So, what do people think of the proposal that there is no restriction on the elements on which dir=uba can appear, but it will act as first-strong (not per-paragraph) on any element that has any child elements, and only work in the per-paragraph mode otherwise? I am looking for any feedback at all, since I am not sure whether this is something people actually want, and if not, whether they want some form of per-paragraph direction, or are happy enough without dir=uba at all. Aharon On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>wrote: > Yet another possibility is to forego <plaintext>, but specify that dir=uba > only works in the per-paragraph mode when the element does not have any > children that are elements (i.e. it congtains no mark-up). Otherwise, it > falls back to first-strong (i.e. gives all its UBA paragraphs the same > direction). I am pretty sure that this would be quite simple to implement, > but have no idea if such a definition would fly in a spec. > > BTW, script can display some plain text in a <pre> (with or without > dir=uba) using the textContent property (except in IE, where one has to use > innerText...). > > Aharon > > > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin < > aharon@google.com> wrote: > >> So, should I include the <plaintext> version of dir=uba in the next draft >> of the proposal? >> >> Aharon >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin < >> aharon@google.com> wrote: >> >>> They would be quite different. <textarea readonly>: >>> >>> - is an inline element >>> - has size controlled by rows and cols attribute; in some browsers, >>> can be resized by the user >>> - is submitted with form >>> - receives focus and appears in taborder >>> - has a border >>> >>> On the other hand, <pre>: >>> >>> - is a block element >>> - sized the same way as a div, e.g. can be minimal size needed to >>> display content. >>> - is not submitted with forms >>> - does not receive focus or appear in taborder >>> - does not have a built-in border >>> >>> In all these respects, I would want the new element to be like <pre>, >>> since it is meant for the display of (pre-formatted plain-text) data. The >>> only way it is similar to <textarea> is that it does not allow mark-up and >>> has a modifiable value property. >>> >>> Aharon >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin >>>> <aharon@google.com> wrote: >>>> > <textarea> allows user input, has the look and feel of an input (e.g. >>>> the >>>> > border around it), and serves as a field in a form. >>>> > >>>> > The new element is for display only, like <pre>. >>>> >>>> But textarea's already support all of the features that you have in >>>> mind. Example: >>>> >>>> data:text/html,<textarea readonly >>>> >>>> style="border:none;overflow:none;resize:none">foo bar baz</textarea> >>>> >>>> I don't think that we should add a new HTML element, unless there's a >>>> compelling reason to do so. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ehsan >>>> <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 18:03:06 UTC