- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:06:54 -0600
- To: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ekssjtq5AQ4F=BdcxpZAomG4ogZBLibsWM1RqOHEB73w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>wrote: > > I don't understand your logic. You say option 2 offers greater forward > compatibility, > > but then say you are choosing 2 because forward compatibility is NOT > important. > > Not because it isn't important, but because in certain cases is LESS > important than another consideration. It's a trade-off. > > In other words, I think that well-formed documents, i.e. ones where > isolates and embeddings/overrides are properly nested, should display as > well as possible on systems that do not support isolates. That is why the > proposal has been modified to include PDI. On the other hand, when it comes > to essentially broken documents, where embeddings/overrides and isolates > are not properly nested, I think it is more important to let isolates do > their job and isolate the missing and extra PDFs in the apps that do > support isolates than to make the document display as similarly as possible > on old and new apps, when apps that don't understand isolates can't > possibly display the document 100% as intended anyway. > > > I think backward compatibility is more desirable, i.e., a system that > knows nothing of > > isolates should work without modification, > > By definition, it can't display the document 100% as intended. We > introduce PDI is so its disability is limited to displaying isolates > incorrectly (but then limit this to when isolates and embeddings/overrides > are properly nested). > > > and yet option 2 requires PDI to close an embedding/override, > > Only when the isolate began before the embedding/override. If we have LRE > RLI PDI PDF, the PDI only closes the isolate, not the embedding. > That stills leaves that case where pre-PDI implementations would behave differently than PDI aware implementations, since the former would not close the embedding/override at the same position. I believe that may be a problem, and should be avoided.
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 14:07:47 UTC