- 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