- From: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:23:16 +0200
- To: Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com>
- Cc: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org
Stephen Deach wrote:
> I thought that the CSS property setting of unicode-bidi="normal" had the
> effect of saying that the normal Unicode bidi rules were applied to
> text, and that the direction property text was effectively ignored (or
> treated as if it were what is being suggested as "auto").
>
> To force a text direction in CSS, you must set direction and set the
> unicode-bidi property to "embed" or "override".
This is partly true for inline elements, but not for block elements,
which is where the "auto" value would be most useful. Even for inline
elements with "unicode-bidi: normal", the direction is not determined by
the first strongly directional character (as in the proposed "auto") but
by the Bidi algorithm as applied to the paragraph as a whole. Example:
<p style="direction: auto">3 PERCENT FAT</p>
This would be resolved as an RTL paragraph and rendered:
TAF TNECREP 3
<p>The label said <span style="unicode-bidi: normal">3 PERCENT
FAT</span>.</p>
Because the numeral follows LTR text, this would be rendered:
The label said 3 TAF TNECREP.
>
>
> At 2007.03.14-09:08(-0700), Mark Davis wrote:
>> The key issue is when users are keying in text in a text entry box. It
>> is quite common with websites in a RTL language for people to be
>> entering in basically LTR text; and also not uncommon for those users
>> to make use of LTR websites (like google.com <http://google.com>), and
>> enter in RTL text, say to search for. If the text entry box is in the
>> "wrong" direction for the text, it is very hard to read and edit. By
>> having an "auto" option that uses the Unicode BIDI algorithm's default
>> for setting the text direction (keying off the first strong direction
>> character of each paragraph), it makes it much easier for users to
>> read and edit the text that they are typing in.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 3/14/07, *Richard Ishida* <ishida@w3.org <mailto:ishida@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, Simon,
>>
>> Could you put a few more words around this, explaining why it is
>> needed and how you think it could be addressed? Then we can
>> discuss the proposal in the i18n core WG and, if agreed, forward
>> to CSS and any other WGs for consideration.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> RI
>>
>> PS: Note that w3c-i18n-ig@w3 is no longer in use. If you are in
>> the Core WG, you can use public-i18n-core@w3.
>>
>> ============
>> Richard Ishida
>> Internationalization Lead
>> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
>> http://www.w3.org/International/
>> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>> <http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>[mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: 11 March 2007 00:03
>> To: Simon Montagu
>> Cc: Jonathan Rosenne; www-international@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international@w3.org>; w3c-i18n-ig
>> Subject: Re: Invalid relationship between bandwidth and
>> spoken language
>>
>>
>> that would be really good...
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/07, Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org
>> <mailto:smontagu@smontagu.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I proposed some time ago adding a value "auto" to
>> the css "direction"
>> property to achieve this result.
>>
>> Mark Davis wrote:
>> > Side issue: Interestingly, we've found that the
>> ltr/rtl options are
>> > insufficient. What people want in many cases in
>> input fields is the
>> > "default" algorithm, whereby even on a generally
>> rtl page, the field
>> > becomes ltr if the first strong character is
>> ltr. Right now we are
>> > simulating that with JavaScript (but it is a
>> pain to do so).
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> > On 3/9/07, *Jonathan Rosenne*
>> <rosennej@qsm.co.il <mailto:rosennej@qsm.co.il>
>> > <mailto: rosennej@qsm.co.il
>> <mailto:rosennej@qsm.co.il
>> <mailto:%20rosennej@qsm.co.il%20%3Cmailto:rosennej@qsm.co.il>> >>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > This was a strange remark. For Arabic or
>> Hebrew texts, little if any
>> > bidi markup is needed. dir="rtl" on the HTML
>> will do the work. As
>> > the referenced article says, it is only
>> needed for mixed content.
>> > And then there is no difference between LTR
>> text contained in an RTL
>> > document and RTL text contained in an LTR
>> document.
>> >
>> > Jony
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > *From:* www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>
>> > <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org>>
>> > [mailto:
>> > www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>
>> > <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org>>
>> >] *On Behalf Of
>> > *Richard Ishida
>> > *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2007 4:11 PM
>> > *To:* 'Rotan Hanrahan'
>> > *Cc:* www-international@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international@w3.org> <mailto:www-international@w3.org>
>> > *Subject:* RE: Invalid relationship
>> between bandwidth and spoken
>> > language
>> >
>> > Fixed.
>> >
>> > RI
>> >
>> > ============
>> > Richard Ishida
>> > Internationalization Lead
>> > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
>> > http://www.w3.org/International/
>> > http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > *From:*
>> www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>
>> >
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org <mailto:
>> www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:%20www-international-request@w3.org>>
>> >
>> >
>> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>
>> > <mailto:
>> www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
>> <mailto:%20www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org>>
>> >] *On Behalf Of
>> > *Rotan Hanrahan
>> > *Sent:* 09 March 2007 12:59
>> > *To:* www-international@w3.org
>> <mailto:www-international@w3.org> <mailto:
>> www-international@w3.org <mailto:www-international@w3.org
>> <mailto:%20www-international@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international@w3.org>>
>> >
>> > *Subject:* Invalid relationship
>> between bandwidth and spoken
>> > language
>> >
>> > A colleague of mine, working in an
>> Arabic speaking region of
>> > the world has pointed out a comment
>> [1] regarding the use of
>> > bidi markup, in which it is stated:
>> >
>> > "Removing them will significantly
>> simplify the document, and
>> > reduce bandwidth - which may be an
>> important consideration
>> > in countries where Arabic is spoken."
>> >
>> > This line seems to suggest that
>> there is an association
>> > between lack of adequate network
>> bandwidth and the speaking
>> > of Arabic, an implication I am sure
>> was not intended.
>> > Firstly, the effect of bidi markup
>> on bandwidth consumption
>> > is negligible compared to the
>> accompanying graphics.
>> > Secondly, any saving on payload size
>> should be seen as
>> > universally beneficial, not just for
>> countries characterised
>> > by the language they speak.
>> >
>> > I suggest that the closing part of
>> that statement ("in
>> > countries where Arabic is spoken")
>> be removed from future
>> > revisions, as it is unnecessary and
>> open to misinterpretation.
>> >
>> > ---Rotan.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> _http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-
>> bidi.html#ri20030726.132037950_
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:
>> 268.18.8 /714 - Release Date:
>> > 08/03/2007 10:58
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/721 - Release Date:
>> 13/03/2007 16:51
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>
>
> ---Steve Deach
> sdeach@adobe.com
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:23:37 UTC