- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:42:41 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>, www-html@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/23/2010 01:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, fantasai wrote:
>>
>> <selector representing all HTML5 block-level elements> {
>> display: block; /* I assume you already have this somewhere */
>> unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */
>> }
>>
>> <selector representing all HTML5 list-item elements> {
>> display: list-item; /* Assumed to exist already */
>> unicode-bidi: embed; /* This is the new rule to add. */
>> }
>>
>> title, table, tbody, thead, tfoot, tr, td, th {
>> unicode-bidi: embed;
>> }
>
> This would mean you couldn't have more than about 60 inline<div>s nested
> inside each other without bidi breaking down. Is that an acceptable risk?
> It seems like it would be a weird thing to tell authors.
I think it's an acceptable risk. 60 levels of nesting on a block
element that's been set to "display: inline" seems like a rather
odd case to hit.
The risk of messed up reordering due to /not/ isolating the block
content is, I suspect, much higher than the risk of running out
of bidi embedding levels due to nested "display: inline" DIVs.
I agree it's a weird thing to tell authors. But hardly any of them
will ever need to care.
~fantasai
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 21:43:41 UTC