- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:42:41 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>, www-html@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/23/2010 01:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, fantasai wrote: >> >> <selector representing all HTML5 block-level elements> { >> display: block; /* I assume you already have this somewhere */ >> unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */ >> } >> >> <selector representing all HTML5 list-item elements> { >> display: list-item; /* Assumed to exist already */ >> unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */ >> } >> >> title, table, tbody, thead, tfoot, tr, td, th { >> unicode-bidi: embed; >> } > > This would mean you couldn't have more than about 60 inline<div>s nested > inside each other without bidi breaking down. Is that an acceptable risk? > It seems like it would be a weird thing to tell authors. I think it's an acceptable risk. 60 levels of nesting on a block element that's been set to "display: inline" seems like a rather odd case to hit. The risk of messed up reordering due to /not/ isolating the block content is, I suspect, much higher than the risk of running out of bidi embedding levels due to nested "display: inline" DIVs. I agree it's a weird thing to tell authors. But hardly any of them will ever need to care. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 21:43:35 UTC