- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:28:50 +0900
- To: ???? <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
Done On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:40 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > Changed the subject to make sure this gets attention from the people > interested in writing modes spec. > > I'm good with Simon's proposal to drop this appendix. Please let us know if any. > > /koji > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:56:36 +0100, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Can bi-di & CSS experts help us to figure out what to do with unicode-bidi >>> and Shadow DOM? >>> >>> I’m thinking, at the Shadow DOM boundaries, the ‘unicode-bidi’ property >>> should be set to ‘isolate’ since that’s the value for bi-di to suffice the >>> philosophy of components IIUC. Is this correct? In Bidi Rules for HTML4[1], >>> I see <div>, <form>, etc. sets this, but I don’t see <input> or <textarea>, >>> so I’m not confident on this point and would appreciate any advices. >> >> >> Maybe https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#bidi-rendering >> is more relevant than the "for HTML4" appendix. (Can we drop those >> appendices? Why do we have them?) >
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2015 08:27:36 UTC