W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-writing-modes][CSS21] propagation of 'direction' from <body>

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:35:10 +1100
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Message-Id: <B8B79E42-DF25-4F8A-87DE-37E6119B094E@rivoal.net>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> On 11 Feb 2015, at 15:22, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
> There are three options for what to do:
> 
>  1) require 'direction' propagation from body to html, fix browsers
>  2) forbid 'direction' propagation from body to html, fix browsers
>  3) require dir=rtl propagation from body to html, fix browsers
> 
> I think #3 makes the most sense because

Makes sense to me, but...

> Wrt compat concerns of only handling dir=rtl and not 'direction: rtl':
> 
>  Greg Whitworth found on a database of 1.3 million pages only 0.03% use
>  'direction: rtl' at all. The number setting that on <body> is a subset
>  of all that, and the number setting it on <body> and not <html> and
>  relying on that making the root behave as RTL is a subset of *that*.
> 
>  So I think it's safe to not worry about pages that (against all W3C
>  recommendations) use 'direction' on <body>, and just handle <body dir=rtl>.

Speaking of a percentage of web pages without restricting the corpus to pages containing rtl languages does not seem that it would give actionable information. If we limit the set to pages that have any content in a rtl language, I suspect this percentage is going to be quite a bit higher. High enough to matter, I don't know, but that would be an interesting number to see to inform this discussion.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 04:35:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC