- From: Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:33:29 +0300
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, www-international-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF31E83F3D.31792B1B-ONC22574B3.00492DCE-C22574B3.004A7994@il.ibm.com>
Martin Duerst wrote: <quote> Do you (or anybody else) have any idea why the algorithm is designed this way? Was this aspect overlooked? Are there other considerations that justify this behavior? Would it be too difficult to describe an algorithm that exhibited the above preservation property? Is this case too rare in practice to be relevant? <end of quote> It is not easy to figure retroactively why the algorithm was designed that way. I guess that the assumption was that authors are not supposed to introduce superfluous marking, so if a span specifies dir=ltr while the current direction is already ltr, this must signify something tangible like raising the embedding level. Achieving what you want would be easy: add an LRM before and after the span, to avoid interaction with possible adjacent RTL text (and for RTL paragraph direction with <span dir="rtl">, add RLM before and after the span to avoid interaction with possible adjacent LTR text). In most real life cases, omitting the LRMs or RLMs would not be critical since the span is not likely to be directly adjacent to opposite-direction text. In most cases, there should be an intervening space or punctuation, and this would be enough to prevent the above-mentioned interaction. Shalom (Regards), Mati Bidi Architect Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts IBM Israel Phone: +972 2 5888802 Fax: +972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 12:34:23 UTC