- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:21:59 +0000
- To: public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23260 --- Comment #8 from Aharon Lanin <aharon.lists.lanin@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #7) > So does this mean that with this change we can drop <bdi>? If we were doing this from scratch now, we would not bother introducing <bdi>. I am not sure it is a good idea to drop it, though, because it is starting to be used, and because of its dir="auto" default, it is handy for marking off unknown-direction inserts. > Why didn't we do this to start with instead of introducing <bdi>? When we filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10807, we were afraid to make backward-incompatible changes. Furthermore, at that time, there were no Unicode isolates, and it was not yet well accepted that Unicode LRE and RLE should have been defined as isolates from the get-go. However, we did not suggest adding <bdi>. What we asked to do was to add a new boolean attribute that would control isolation. Thus, <span dir="rtl" ubi> and <span ubi> would be isolating; <span dir="rtl"> (or <span dir="rtl" ubi="off") would not. That proposal was not accepted. You proposed doing isolation via an element instead of an attribute in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10807#c6. I objected several times in follow-up comments, but you insisted, and in the end I deferred to you. I was not yet aware that requiring an element gives the additional problems I described above (microformatting and the block/inline dichotomy). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 08:22:00 UTC