- From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:29:46 -0700
- To: "Stephen Deach" <sdeach@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Simon Montagu" <smontagu@smontagu.org>, www-international@w3.org
- Message-ID: <30b660a20703151129p79dd5a68rbdeffc099fe190f8@mail.gmail.com>
I don't think that we are yet communicating completely.
The proposal is for some CSS option that causes the directionality of each
paragraph of text within the block to depend on the contents of the text in
that block. The main usage would be for text entry fields. For each
paragraph, it would effectively have the same effect as direction:rtl if the
first strong character was R or AL (as per the Unicode BIDI algorithm), and
direction:ltr otherwise. However, it must be dynamic; as the user modifies
the text in a text input field, the effective direction must change in
response.
Mark
* A refinement of this would be RTL if the first strong character were R or
AL, LTR if the first strong character were L, and otherwise inherit the
direction.
Mark
On 3/15/07, Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> At 2007.03.15-06:33(+0200), Simon Montagu wrote:
>
> Stephen Deach wrote:
>
> [Whoops, hit reply vs reply-all; resending to the list]
> At 2007.03.14-20:23(+0200), you wrote:
>
> 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>
>
> (I assume you are using the notational convention that ALLCAPS is RTL and
> lowercase/Mixed-case is ltr.)
>
>
> Yes
>
> This would be resolved as an RTL paragraph and rendered:
>
> TAF TNECREP 3
>
> But so would: <p style="direction:ltr; unidode-bidi:normal">3 PERCENT
> FAT</p>
> As would: <p style="direction:rtl; unidode-bidi:normal">3 PERCENT
> FAT</p>
> To force this to be interpreted as totally RTL, you would need to force
> the direction by setting the direction property to "RTL" and the
> unicode-bidi property to "override" or "embed".
>
>
> I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you describing the current
> behaviour or making an alternative proposal? As I understand the CSS spec,
> "unicode-bidi: normal" currently has no effect on block elements, so <p
> style="direction:ltr; unicode-bidi:normal">3 PERCENT FAT</p> will be
> rendered
>
> 3 TAF CNETREP
>
> I am describing what I interpret to be the current behavior. 'unicode-bidi'
>
> Value: normal | embed | bidi-override | inherit
> Initial: normal
> Applies to: all elements, but see prose
> Inherited: no
> Percentages: N/A
> Media: visual
>
> CSS-2.0 & 2.1 state it applies to all elements (with restrictions noted in
> the prose).
> The restriction is that the embed option applies only to inlines, but the
> wording explicitly states that the normal & override values apply to the
> block as a whole (or to inlines when specified on an inline), and goes on to
> detail specifically how.
> It is my interpretation, that applying dir="rtl" and unicode-bidi="normal"
> (the default) or unicode-bidi="override" to to a block-level element should
> result in: TAF TNECREP 3
>
> So, what I'm saying is that you do not need a value of "auto" on the CSS
> direction property, unless you want to add the ability to force a
> directional re-evaluation on an inline in mid-paragraph (by inspecting the
> first character within the inline that has a strong direction). This is
> something that can't be done using the exiting Unicode directional-control
> characters today, you can force an explicit direction, but can't force the
> algorithm to "re-start". (I can see some cases in forms design where such
> an option would be useful in CSS [there is a way to do it in XSL by using an
> fo:inline-container], when fill-in fields are not a separate paragraph. I
> would probably add it as a new value on unicode-bidi [and possibly a
> corresponding directionality marker to Unicode], rather than add "auto" to
> direction; direction is used to control table-layout and other layout stuff
> and really needs an explicit rtl or ltr value.)
>
>
>
> <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.
>
> Yes, but how would "auto" differ in this case, since "auto" would say to
> evaluate it using the Unicode bidi algorithm, which says to apply the
> directionality rules to the whole paragraph; is shouldn't restart the
> evaluation for the span. (If that is not what you wish, I would suggest you
> find a better value name than "auto". For almost all CSS properties "auto"
> simply means "use the preferred behavior", this would clearly mean "do
> something different from the preferred behavior".)
>
>
> I think the usage of "auto" is comparable to that for properties connected
> to the size of replaced elements, where "auto" means "use the intrinsic size
> of the element", but I'm not wedded to it. "contextual" or "implicit" would
> be possible alternatives.
>
> How would one force your desired behavior using the Unicode directionality
> markers?
>
>
> The best one could do would be to enclose the text in <RLE>...<PDF>, but
> as far as I know there is no way to capture all of the desired behaviour
> using Unicode directional markers. To recap, in the case that Mark describes
> below of entering a RTL search term in an input field at a LTR search
> engine, the ideal desired behaviour would be that when the user begins to
> type RTL characters, the text would be aligned to the right and ordered RTL.
> With <RLE>...<PDF> there would be no right-alignment, and trailing
> whitespace would still be to the right of entered text. The last is not a
> minor consideration when entering text: spaces between words are "trailing
> whitespace" until the next word is entered, and the net effect is that the
> inter-word spaces and the text caret jump about from one end of the line to
> the other, which is distracting for the user
>
>
>
> 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<www-international-request@w3.org>
> >[mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<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 <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 <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 <rosennej@qsm.co.il>>
> > <mailto: rosennej@qsm.co.il <%20rosennej@qsm.co.il>>>
>
> <mailto:rosennej@qsm.co.il <rosennej@qsm.co.il>>> <
> mailto:%20rosennej@qsm.co.il%20%3Cmailto:rosennej@qsm.co.il<%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<www-international-request@w3.org>
> >
> > <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>>>
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>>>
> <
> mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org>>>
>
> > [mailto:
> > www-international-request@w3.org
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>
> >
> > <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>>>
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>>>
> <
> mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org<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 <www-international@w3.org>> <
> mailto:www-international@w3.org <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<www-international-request@w3.org>
> >
> >
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org><
> mailto:>>
> www-international-request@w3.org
>
> <
> mailto:www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:%20www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:%20www-international-request@w3.org>>>
>
> >
> >
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>
> >
> > <mailto:
> www-international-request@w3.org
> <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org<www-international-request@w3.org>>>
> <
> mailto:%20www-international-request@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international-request@w3.org<%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 <www-international@w3.org>> <mailto:
> www-international@w3.org <mailto:www-international@w3.org<www-international@w3.org>>>
> <mailto:%20www-international@w3.org%20%3Cmailto:www-international@w3.org<%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
>
>
>
> ---Steve Deach
> sdeach@adobe.com
>
>
> ---Steve Deach
> sdeach@adobe.com
>
--
Mark
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:29:56 UTC