- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:15:10 -0700
- To: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>
- CC: atom-syntax@imc.org, www-international@w3.org, public-i18n-geo@w3.org
The key challenge with using ITS in Atom is its complexity and scope. Atom simply doesn't need to do that much. - James Nicolas Krebs wrote: > [snip] > XHTML 1.0 is the only specification which is not a working draft, but its > dir attribute does not allow "lro" and "rlo" values. > > I do not guess XHTML 2.0 will be usable before a long time. > > What are the roadmap for "Atom Bidirectional Extension" and > "Internationalization Tag Set 1.0" ? On the today speed, when are they > sheduled, when can we hope, that it will be internet^W xml standard and > published as "W3C Recommendation" or "IETF RFC" ? > > Could it be avoided having two spec for the same purpose ? > > See also > - Richard Ishida, "What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline > markup", http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/ > - W3C Internationalization Tag Set working group, "Best Practices for XML > Internationalization", section 2.2 "Provide a way to specify text directionality", > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#DevDir > - James Snell, "Adding bidi support to Atom", http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=470 > - James Snell, "Atom Bidirectional Extension", http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=484 > - "PaceAtomBidi", http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAtomBidi > - "FAQ: Bidi formatting codes vs. markup in (X)HTML", > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-controls > - "FAQ: CSS vs. markup for bidi support", > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-css-markup > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:15:34 UTC