Re: Re: rtli and ltri

The bdi attribute was what we had originally proposed to the HTML WG, but
they adamantly refused it in favor of a new element.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Matitiahu Allouche <
matitiahu.allouche@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally, I don't like dir="ltri" or dir="rtli". This is overloading 2
> properties on the same attribute. It may offer some advantage to
> implementers, but the odd cases mentioned by Aharon show that this is not a
> good design, IMHO.****
>
> If one prefers having the isolation expressed as an attribute, then let us
> create a specific attribute for it, like bdi="yes"|"no", with default
> values which could be dependent on the type of element affected.****
>
> ** **
>
> Shalom (Regards),  *Mati*****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin [mailto:aharon@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:18 PM
> *To:* Richard Ishida
> *Cc:* public-i18n-core@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Re: rtli and ltri****
>
> ** **
>
> I like it too, but if <bdi> is still going to be available, what should
> <bdi dir="rtl"> mean - the same as <span dir="rtli"> or <span dir="rtl">?
> The latter makes no sense - bdi is supposed to mean "bidi *isolate*", but
> the former also seems strange, since the user specifically said  <bdi
> dir="rtl">, *not* <bdi dir="rtli">.****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, does this mean that you are no longer trying to get markup that
> bidi-unaware users can be convinced to do without specific reference to
> bidi that will make their HTML work properly with bidi data?****
>
> ** **
>
> Aharon****
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> On 05/04/2012 08:52 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>
>        I've been niggled for a while now by the asymmetry of the bidi
>        contructs we have in html5, and the more I look at our html5
>        recommendations, the more it seems to me that the bdi element is
>        really not the most simple way to do isolation when you know
>        the direction of text.
>
>        For example****
>
>        <p>ltr-text <cite><bdi dir=rtl>RTL-TEXT</bdi></cite><__/p>****
>
>
>
>        is convoluted and verbose. It also allows the possibility of
>        introducing unwanted spaces between the element tags when
>        pretty-printing code or other editorial operations.
>
>        It seems to me that, for the situations where we know the
>        direction in particular, it would have been easier to simply invent
>        two new values for the dir attribute: rtli and ltri.
>
> ****
>
> =====================****
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:57 PM, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net****
>
> <mailto:fantasai@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>
>    I like it!
>
>    ~fantasai
>
>
> =====================****
>
>
>
> On 06 May 2012 12:43:47 +0300, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote:
>
>
> No, we never considered it. Yes, it does have some things going for it.
>
> Keep in mind, though, that when we asked the HTMLWG for isolation in
> HTML, we asked for a new attribute. They decided that they liked a new
> element better.
>
> Another thing is that this may conflict with an element-based approach.
> That is, if dir="ltri" means {unicode-bidi:isolate; direction:ltr}, but
> dir="ltr" means  {unicode-bidi:embed; direction:ltr}, it seems strange
> that <output dir="ltr"> nevertheless uses unicode-bidi:isolate.
>
> Aharon
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>