A dir="" cannot be replaced by not using a "dir" at all because the
"dir" attribute is inherited. The empty string effectively resets the
direction context while a missing dir means use the inherited value.
One of the arguments in favor of the empty string is to allow the
directionality of entry metadata to be set without affecting the default
directionality of the content... e.g.,
<entry dir="rtl">
<title>{rtl text}</title>
...
<content type="html" dir="">
<p>{no base direction}</p>
</content>
</entry>
Here, the HTML content could have come from anywhere and may not
necessarily be under the control of whatever piece of code generated the
entry. It originally had no explicitly established directionality.
Without the dir="", however, it would automatically inherit the
dir="rtl" from the containing entry, which significantly and wrongly
changes the semantics of the html content.
If folks do not think this really is a problem, then I'd have no problem
pulling the empty string value out.
- James
Franklin Tse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The "dir" attribute of Atom allows an empty string indicating that no
> base-direction is specified. However, the one in HTML allows the value of the
> attribute to be either "ltr" or "rtl", the empty string leads to extra cost
> in transforming Atom to HTML.
>
> <xsl:if test="@dir='ltr' or @dir='rtl'">
> <xsl:attribute name="dir">
> <xsl:value-of select="@dir" />
> </xsl:attribute>
> </xsl:if>
>
> In additional, dir="" can be replaced by not using any "dir" attribute in the
> element. So, I don't think there is a need to allow dir="".
>
> Regards,
> Franklin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Franklin Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "atom-syntax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "atom-protocol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 22:29
> Subject: Re: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call
>
>> I'd be fine with this also. There's no immediate rush for this but it
>> would be excellent if implementors could start taking a look at it.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> Franklin Tse wrote:
>>> I don't think we are in a hurry to move the draft to an RFC, so, can the
>>> draft be held in the "Draft" stage and issue a call for implementations?
>>> The future of the draft should be based on the implementation reports
>>> received.
>>>
>>> Franklin
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Martin Duerst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Franklin Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc: "atom-syntax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "atom-protocol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 15:29
>>> Subject: Re: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call
>>>
>>>> At 02:25 07/03/23, James M Snell wrote:
>>>>> It is not year clear if there has been enough independent implementation
>>>>> of the specification to justify publishing it as a proposed standard.
>>>> There is no need for implementations when going to Proposed Standard
>>>> (of course, they never hurt). There is a well-defined need when going
>>>> from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, but that's way in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Martin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
>>>> #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>
