- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:17:49 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:21:35 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > Doug Schepers wrote: >> 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). I'm guessing this wording was the SVG translation of the following sentence in CSS: "For the 'direction' property to have any effect on inline-level elements, the 'unicode-bidi' property's value must be 'embed' or 'override'." So the question then becomes: what is an "inline-level element" in terms of svg? I'm thinking that this might be the 'tspan' element, since that cannot start a text content block by itself. The 'tspan' element always needs to be enclosed in a 'text content block element'. >>> # 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). > > I suggest removing the text. The first quoted sentence is very clearly wrong. Is the corresponding sentence in CSS also wrong? > The second quoted sentence is most likely referring to the effects of the > glyph-orientation properties, which are not included in SVG 1.2 Tiny, and > which are very poorly defined in SVG 1.1. I agree that this sentence seems both incorrect and unnecessary in SVG 1.2 Tiny. Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:16:39 UTC