Re: a whole new headache?

There is an irony here. Using BIDI logical architecture should make sites
more accessible. But it does not. This is because it is not supported by
most browsers. (Netscape and  I.E. 4 - unless the Hebrew version). The only
browser I have heard of that does properly support it is IE5. -  Not all
that accessible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Gilman <>
To: <>
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: a whole new headache?

>New, no; headache, yes.
>If you start with the HTML specification (at least any version since HTML4)
>and search on BIDI or bi-directional you should find that the
>Recommendations from the W3C are squarely in favor of a standard logical
>architecture which supports bi-directional lanaguages, and where
>line-breaking is performed in rendering by the client and not in the
>authoring.  And most or all the rest of what "logical Hebrew" has that
>"visual Hebrew" doesn't that makes it superior for your needs.
>This does not mean that the fully logicalized implementation is endemic.
>There are varying levels of implementation of the W3C Recommendations in
>the IT marketplace.
>But this does emphasize that Internationalization and Accessibility are
>frequently allies in wishing for a more logical view to be preserved in the
>And that sometimes the problem is persuading people to use the logical
>At 12:56 PM 2000-09-14 +0200, you wrote:
>>A student of mine asked me to look into writing html with a Hebrew which
>>a bi-directional language (so is Arabic).
>>From my research for her Visual Hebrew can be see by browsers on all
>>platforms: PC, Mac and X-terminal (UNIX). Logical Hebrew can only be seen
>>from a PC.
>>Visual Hebrew, the writer (or the converter program) has to take care of
>>breaking the lines. So you have to use absolute width with page layout
>>tables. If the browser makes break the line by itself, the text will
>>Now for people don't have Hebrew installed on their PC the whole thing is
>>gibberish. So you have to have an English version page. But that seems to
>>to be, well, a second best.
>>A lot of this conflicts with  our guidelines ( absolute width, tables for
>>page layout...) and altogether seems to be a big accessibility problem for
>>lot of people.
>>Have we dealt with all this before I joined? if so were can I read up
>>Or is this a whole new headache?
>>Yours, with the Tylenol

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2000 09:29:47 UTC