- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Tex Texin <tex@I18nGuy.com>
- Cc: "ishida@w3.org" <ishida@w3.org>, "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>, "public-i18n-geo@w3.org" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Tex Texin wrote: > > How do I use the natural directionality of the text, when inserting any > html or xhtml element applies a direction of ltr, rtl, or one inherited > from its parent? (Which is what the CSS 2.1 spec suggested be done...) If the directionality of an element is the same as its parent, then nothing happens wrt bidi. Setting directionality in CSS is exactly equivalent to using LRO, RLO, LRE, RLE, and PDF, depending on the values of unicode-bidi and direction. > The alternative I guess, and maybe what the spec is suggesting, is to > know the direction of the characters and only apply elements that have > the same direction as the text. What a silly and tremendous burden to > have insert elements only because the underlying text is changing > script. Could you show an example where you think the current spec doesn't work? > To answer your last question, the information in the CSS 2.1 draft spec > is incorrect if the element has unicode-bidi:embed set, the levels are > different. The space will not travel to the front of the B. Therefore > the spec should say that the description is accurate only if > unicode-bidi:normal, the same way it points out white-space:normal must > be set. Oh, right, I see. Yes, good point. I'll bring that up in the WG. Thanks. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2003 17:23:10 UTC