- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:49:10 +0100
- To: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>
- Cc: "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>, www International <www-international@w3.org>, "public-i18n-bidi@w3.org" <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
The way I propose to link direction to @lang,[1] then, to get the new isolation behavior for unsupported languages, one could do this: <div lang="unsupported-language" dir="auto"> <div dir="rtl">Lorem Ipsum</div> </div> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/20130220214342391704.d3a0addd@xn--mlform-iua.no Leif H Silli Andrew Cunningham, Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:25:20 +1100: > Hi Amir, > > In theory basing it on language sounds good, but I doubt it would be > practical. I suspect that even if browser developers implemented it, that > it would only cover a small subset of languages. And could damage minority > languages, ie. set the direction incorrectly for minority languages. > > Additionally a number of languages have orthographies using different > scripts and require different directions being set. > > In theory this could be covered by language tagging being accurate and > including script codes where necessary. But ... > > Personally, as a developer working with multiple languages, I prefer to > have full control of languages, their typography, text direction and other > aspecta. > On Feb 21, 2013 5:37 AM, "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> > wrote: > >> i2013/2/20 Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>: >>> Hello Amir, >>> >>> In my opinion, using the @lang attribute to set direction is a bad idea. >> The >>> language tag is not an explicit indicator of the direction of content. It >>> may, of course, imply the direction. But it is a poor indicator compared >> to >>> either explicit direction or to first strong (auto direction). >> >> Contrariwise: first-strong is just a poor heuristic when no other >> information about direction is available. >> >> dir="rtl/ltr" is what's used in practice today, of course, and it's >> OK, but how is it used? How does the developer decide that something >> should be ltr or rtl? According to the language, of course. At least >> that's what happens in major CMSs, like WordPress and MediaWiki. I am >> a developer of the latter; it applies dir server-side (and sometimes >> client-side) according the language whenever it is known. We currently >> maintain our list of languages, with a direction specified for each >> language, and we are gradually moving to using the CLDR for providing >> information about the writing system, and hence the direction, of each >> language. I cannot imagine web developers doing anything else. And >> since that's what's happening in practice, it should be done by the >> browser. >> >> There are edge cases, the most famous examples being Punjabi and >> Azeri, but as I explain in >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19888 , using correct >> language codes solves this problem. Developers should use a correct >> lang attribute anyway. This also means that "few people use the lang >> attribute" is a weak argument. >> >> What I am proposing is to apply a *default* direction according to the >> specified language, and to make it possible to override with an >> explicit dir (or direction) attribute. >> >> -- >> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי >> http://aharoni.wordpress.com >> “We're living in pieces, >> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore >> >> >>> >>> Having @lang start a new isolate might be worthwhile, though, since one >>> language embedded in another might very well have different directional >>> characteristics and there is no reason to require users to input both >>> attributes if the content does not inherently require more complex >> markup. >>> >>> Addison Phillips >>> Globalization Architect (Lab126) >>> Chair (W3C I18N WG) >>> >>> Sent from my Kindle Fire HD >>> >>> >>> "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: >>> >>> The direction/dir transition plan is nice. >>> >>> It's a bit disappointing, though, that neither of the following >>> suggestions was considered: >>> 1. Make any element with an explicit lang or dir attribute >>> bidi-isolated by default >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18490 >>> >>> 2. Apply the direction according to language >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19888 >>> >>> Is there, maybe, a plan to consider this in the future? >>> >>> -- >>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי >>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com >>> “We're living in pieces, >>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore >>> >>> >>> 2013/2/20 Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>: >>>> Unicode 6.3 will shortly be released, and will contain new control codes >>>> (RLI, LRI, FSI, PDI) to enable authors to express isolation at the same >>>> time >>>> as direction in inline bidirectional text. The Unicode Consortium >>>> recommends >>>> that isolation be used as the default for all future inline >> bidirectional >>>> text embeddings. >>>> >>>> The i18n WG has been discussing how to ensure that HTML5 encourages and >>>> enables content authors to adopt and apply isolation *as the default* >>>> whenever they set direction on inline content, and discourage future use >>>> of >>>> dir=rtl or dir=ltr (which does not produce isolation). >>>> >>>> The proposal of the WG, with rationales, can be found at >>>> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Html-bidi-isolation >>>> >>>> i18n WG folks, please let me know asap if you think this needs changing >> in >>>> some way. >>>> >>>> RI >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Ishida >>>> W3C >>>> http://rishida.net/ >>>> >>> >>> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 20:49:44 UTC