RE: bidi-override scope in CSS2 and CSS 2.1

Hello Richard,

Let's have the internationalization team on board as well. This has a
huge impact and should be openly discussed.

Paul 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:46 PM
To: Paul Nelson (ATC); www-style@w3.org
Cc: 'Richard Ishida'
Subject: RE: bidi-override scope in CSS2 and CSS 2.1

Hi Paul,

I'm back from my travels and would like to continue this discussion, but
I want to reinstate the original copy list, which includes the i18n
folks.
Are you happy for me to do that?  (I assume yes, since you copied a
public list on this email.)

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/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nelson (ATC)
> Sent: 25 October 2006 00:12
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: FW: bidi-override scope in CSS2 and CSS 2.1
> 
> 
> I responded to the mail on 19 September with following:
>  
> Actually, because 'unicode-bidi' is not inherited, the output would be

> right aligned as below:
> 
>                     txet enilni emoS
> 
> enil rehtona no txet enilne erom dna
> 
>                  A paragraph of text
> 
>                txet enilni erom emoS
> 
>  
> I would assume that the contents of the block level element could be 
> marked up as Richard indicated. The <bdo> is defined as an in-line 
> element. However, the intent with CSS should be to affect the content 
> of any element.
> 
> What will XHTML2 do if CSS is not present? In HTML we recommend that 
> people use dir and <bdo> instead of stylesheet in case the stylesheet 
> is not applied when bidi markup is important.
> 
> 
> The dir property in HTML 4.01 only has ltr | rtl. The example given 
> has "rlo". From point of view the dir property should never have the 
> "lro"
> or "rlo" meaning. Those are behavior overrides and are not things that

> should be encouraged for normal document behavior. We have spent many 
> years to try to move away from visual Hebrew. Let's encourage people 
> to use Unicode in logical order and avoid having to do this kind of 
> behavior...except as needed to support legacy documents.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 15:58:03 UTC