- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:26:58 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, chairs@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
"Martin J. Duerst" wrote: > > At 16:41 1999/12/16 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: > > > "Martin J. Duerst" wrote: > > > > Please note that for RTL scripts (Arabic, Hebrew), graphical user > > > selection can lead to the selection of more than one logical parts > > > (ranges) of a document. > > > > And that logical selection, which is more likely to be useful (ie, give > > you text you can paste somewhere else and have it still make sense) will > > give a contiguous selection on the document (a single start point and a > > single end point) although it may display as multiple discontiguous > > portions on the screen. > > > > This is the more common case, since selection is typically initiated by > > some sort of pointer click and the other end is determined by tracking > > the current pointer position (and finalised by a second click); this > > produces a single start and a single end, and the selected portion is > > all characters in between. This is exactly the same for LTR, RTL and > > mixed scripts; only the visual result differs. > > As far as user preference is concerned, it seems that using > graphical selection (setting two points and selecting all the > text that is visually in between these two points) is more > common. To distinguish these cases, we need to consider bidi otherwise they are identical. Please demonstrate that visual selection is "more common" than logical selection in a reasonable sampling of bidi-enabled editors, wordprocessors or browsers of your choice. My impression is quite the reverse. -- Chris
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 1999 06:44:05 UTC