On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, fantasai wrote: > 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. On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, L. David Baron wrote: > > In the case Ian raised, I'd think embedding level would normally > increment by 2, since there are no directionality changes, and an LTR > (RTL) embedding bumps the embedding level to the next higher even (odd) > embedding level. > > So bidi would start breaking down inside the 32nd nested <div > style="display:inline">. On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > For what it's worth, Gecko has had "div { unicode-bidi: embed; }" in the > UA stylesheet for about a year now in nightlies and for close to half a > year in a shipping release (Firefox 3.6). I don't believe we've had a > single issue reported in that time. Done: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5283&to=5284 -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 05:23:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:58 UTC