- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 15:26:54 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-bidi@w3.org" <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>
On 11/05/2010 02:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin > <aharon@google.com> wrote: >> >> As was also mentioned, this does not address similar flipping/rotation for >> <img> elements ... > > Could you do this by tagging the <img> with @dir? ... > > That is, whenever the <img> is in an opposite-direction context, flip it. Theoretically, yes, but most of the time image content isn't directional. So you don't want to do that unconditionally. (Note the 'dir' attribute on <img>, <object>, etc. is supposed to indicate the base direction of fallback text; it is not about the directionality of the image itself.) In fact, I can't think of a use case where an embedded *content* image would need to be flipped for horizontal presentation. All the images that I can think of that would need to be flipped are presentational. If there are counterexamples that prove a strong case for automatic direction-flipping of content images, then the issue should be brought to the HTMLWG for consideration; hacking this with CSS is not appropriate imo. I'm just not coming up with anything--and the workaround of providing alternate images does exist for any unusual cases. ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 23:27:36 UTC