- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:40:17 -0400
- To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi, Folks- Chris Lilley wrote (on 3/23/09 11:21 AM): > On Sunday, March 22, 2009, 10:30:30 AM, Cameron wrote: > > CM> I’m wondering also if someone could tell me the exact i18n > problems CM> allowing markup rather than plain text solves. Do the > Unicode bidi CM> control characters (like RLE, PDF, etc.) not allow > you to do everything CM> you need to? > > They let you change direction. They don't let you say what the > language is of substrings. I guess the canonical use case is a title > containing two characters, one Chinese and one Japanese, which have > been unified in Unicode and which are typically rendered with > different glyphs depending on the language. This reminded me of another nice thing about having child markup: <switch> can be a child of <title>: <title> <switch> <tspan systemLanguage="zh-Hans" xml:lang="zh">标题</tspan> <tspan systemLanguage="es" xml:lang="es">Titulo</tspan> <tspan systemLanguage="hu" xml:lang="hu">Cím</tspan> <tspan xml:lang="el">τίτλος</tspan> <switch> <title> This is not strictly necessary, because you could have a switch with <title> children: <switch> <title systemLanguage="zh-Hans" xml:lang="zh">标题</title> <title systemLanguage="es" xml:lang="es">Titulo</title> <title systemLanguage="hu" xml:lang="hu">Cím</title> <title xml:lang="el">τίτλος</title> <switch> I have to say that <switch> as a child of <title> seems more semantically correct to me, and makes the processing clearer, since only titles would be under the switch, not some other markup. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 19:40:26 UTC