- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:06:18 -0700
- To: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>
- CC: public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/26/2010 08:43 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote: > > The spec says > > > > # User agents that support bidirectional text must apply the Unicode > > # bidirectional algorithm to every sequence of inline boxes > > # uninterrupted by a forced (bidi class B) line break or block boundary. > > # This sequence forms the "paragraph" unit in the bidirectional algorithm. > > > > In what way is this not sufficient to address your concerns? > > Taken by itself, it is perfectly explicit and sufficient. > > The problem is that the unicode-bidi:isolate spec is also perfectly > explicit and sufficient, and, it seems to me, conflicts with the above: > > for the purpose of bidi resolution in its containing > paragraph (if any), the [unicode-bidi:isolate] element itself is treated > as if it were an Object Replacement Character (U+FFFC). > > When both specs apply, I think it should be either implicitly obvious or > explicitly stated which one wins. I do not think it is implicitly > obvious, so I would like to state it explicitly. I'm not seeing the conflict. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 09:07:02 UTC