- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:35:43 +0000
- To: public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10815 --- Comment #7 from fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> 2010-10-08 16:35:39 UTC --- > Now embeddings and such are inherited automatically on blocks, and so in the > block styling, there would be an embedding To clarify what Martin's talking about, the effect of being a block, bidi-wise, is similar to that of being an embedding: the surrounding contents do not affect resolution within the element, and the 'direction' of the element determines the direction at its boundaries. (It has nothing to do with "inheriting embeddings" or anything like that.) Furthermore, any text reordering is confined within the boundaries of the element, which is an important similarity to the behavior of blocks. Both with isolation and with embedding, not only are the contents of the element isolated from the surrounding content, but, as with a block element, the contents of the element do not affect bidi resolution of the surrounding content. The difference between isolation and embedding is the effect of the element itself on the surrounding contents. For isolation, it's treated as neutral--effectively invisible. For embedding, it's treated as a strong character in the direction of the embedding. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You reported the bug.
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 16:35:45 UTC