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

Re: [css-writing-modes] Drop Appendix B: Bidi Rules for HTML 4 (was Re: [css-scoping] unicode-bidi in Shadow DOM, and possibly other properties?

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:28:50 +0900
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
Message-Id: <B703FCC6-A624-43B0-95A4-33F262986899@gmail.com>
To: (wrong string) 石井宏治 <kojiishi@gmail.com>

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?
>>> Im thinking, at the Shadow DOM boundaries, the unicode-bidi property
>>> should be set to isolate since thats 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 dont see <input> or <textarea>,
>>> so Im 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:47 UTC