On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Phillips, Addison<[email protected]> wrote: > (personal response) > >> The concerns are that people won't implement ITS > > Saying "we're concerned no one will implement ITS" makes it sound like some > exotic specification that may not find community support. But plenty of Recs > have 'dir' and 'span' attributes/elements to allow for proper bidi markup. > Having ITS define these for you in a conveniently referenced spec is a > novelty, but shouldn't be used as a reason for "people" to think they "don't > need to implement it" :-). >
I agree. However, I wonder if this would be less scary for everyone if we made a separate spec that just defined a "dir" attribute and a <span> element as part of the widgets family of specs. Already having one namespace is scary enough for most developers. > I believe that most widget engines can easily implement these features > because they already leverage the text layout capabilities of a browser, of > the host operating system, or both and because most JavaScript engines > already implement Unicode bidi. Setting base direction or directional > override from markup is a small matter of implementing the parsing---not a > total rewrite. If you specify it, I believe it can happen. > > I recognize that your WG is merely noting that the feature is "at risk". I > believe the I18N WG would object to its removal and urge the webapps > community to include bidi support. > We certainly want bidi support. That goes without question. >> The concerns are that people won't implement ITS (or that authors >> can >> use the appropriate Unicode markers to achieve the same thing as >> ITS). > > We have a FAQ about that. In fact, we just announced it a few minutes ago. > Please see [1] for links. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2009JulSep/0001.html > Thanks for the link. I will have a read at the new documents. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
