- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:55:38 +0000
- To: public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23260 Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp --- Comment #3 from Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> --- (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #2) > Why are we changing this stuff _again_? Can't we leave it for a few years? > There's so much churn in this part of the spec that I'd be surprised if any > browser vendor even looked at the spec any more. There is indeed quite some churn here, and browser vendors may wait and look at the spec again once things (including the Unicode Bidi Algorithm itself) have settled down. > Are browsers planning on changing to this? > > What problem is it solving? The actual change that Aharon proposed in comment #1 make sure that the browsers have leeway when implementing this. They can make sure that the dir attribute uses isolation by explicitly including the relevant parts of the default stylesheet. Or they can make sure that the default behavior is just the same as the default stylesheet. Another way to interpret Aharon's tweak in comment #1 is that it makes sure the spec is consistent, nothing more. And I wouldn't want to wait a few years to make that happen. > What's the back-compat impact? If we assume that the default stylesheet part trumps the definition in the 'dir' attribute section, then Aharon's tweak in comment #1 doesn't change anything. If you ask about the back-compat impact of the overall bug, I'd describe it as follows: There is a difference between embedding and isolation only in weird corner cases. And these cases are so that when you hit them, you want isolation, not embedding. You have to fake that by adding some ‎ or ‏ or some such. The fake doesn't do any harm when interpretation changes from embedding to isolation, it just becomes unnecessary. So the back-compat impact is essentially non-existent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 03:55:40 UTC