- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:14:16 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, fantasai-
fantasai wrote (on 10/28/08 7:10 PM):
> Doug Schepers wrote:
>>
>> fantasai wrote (on 9/17/08 7:51 PM):
>>>
>>> I therefore strongly recommend that SVG Tiny include the 'direction'
>>> property.
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion. We agree with you and the I18N WG, and have
>> added both 'direction' and 'unicode-bidi' properties. [1]
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/text.html#DirectionProperty
>
> # For the 'direction' property to have any effect, the 'unicode-bidi'
> # property's value must be embed or bidi-override.
>
> This is false. As I explained before, the 'direction' property alone has an
> effect when set at the paragraph level ("paragraph" being the unit of text
> the bidi algorithm operates on).
>
> # The 'direction' property applies only to glyphs oriented perpendicular
> # to the inline-progression-direction, which includes the usual case of
> # horizontally-oriented Latin or Arabic text and the case of narrow-cell
> # Latin or Arabic characters rotated 90 degrees clockwise relative to a
> # top-to-bottom inline-progression-direction.
>
> This doesn't make any sense. The 'direction' property does not apply to
> glyphs, it applies to text runs. (Although when combined with
> "bidi-override" it does also apply to characters.)
As I understand it, the wording for 'direction' and 'unicode-bidi' comes
directly from SVG 1.1, and has been around for a while. However, it's
possible that there was an error (or ambiguity) in that spec. If you
could propose alternative wording, and if the I18N WG concurs with you,
the SVG WG will almost certainly make the suggested change (though I'd
have to check with them first, of course).
Regards-
-Doug
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 22:14:30 UTC