Re: Atom and bidi

On 3/10/06 11:44 AM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the default direction for the entire document is RTL, allowing that to be established at the feed or entry element level can save some effort adding the appropriate controls to every text element. so @dir is to be inherited by

Re: Atom and bidi

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:03:50 +0200, Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what happens with content src=.. dir=rtl / ? The same as with xht:object data= dir=rtl/ ... (Please don't ask the obvious question, it's probably not defined.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: Atom and bidi

James M Snell wrote: just to be clear, I'm saying the following would be equivalent (where [RLO] and [PDF] represent the corresponding bidi controls) content type=text dir=rtlABCDEFG/content content type=text[RLO]ABCDEFG[PDF]/content You should be aware that there is a significant difference

Re: Atom and bidi

A dir=rtl on the content element establishes the base direction for the content but, just as with xml:lang, the content itself can override the value using whatever mechanisms are native to the content type. - James Eric Scheid wrote: On 3/10/06 11:44 AM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: Atom and bidi

Doh! I actually meant [RLE] here and not [RLO]. Either way, yes, I know there is a difference. The point I was trying to make is the same made in HTML4-8.2: Although Unicode specifies special characters that deal with text direction, HTML offers higher-level markup constructs that do

Re: Atom and bidi

huh? REC-xml-2.12: The language specified by xml:lang applies to the element where it is specified (including the values of its attributes), and to all elements in its content unless overridden with another instance of xml:lang. - James Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 03 Oct

Re: Atom and bidi

James M Snell wrote: Doh! I actually meant [RLE] here and not [RLO]. Either way, yes, I know there is a difference. Ok, but I think you need to clarify what exactly it is that this attribute is supposed to mean then. Because if it's just the equivalent of wrapping the content in

Re: Atom and bidi

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:03:02 +0200, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: huh? REC-xml-2.12: The language specified by xml:lang applies to the element where it is specified (including the values of its attributes), and to all elements in its content unless overridden with another

Re: Atom and bidi

Yes, equivalent to div dir=rtl - James James Holderness wrote: James M Snell wrote: Doh! I actually meant [RLE] here and not [RLO]. Either way, yes, I know there is a difference. Ok, but I think you need to clarify what exactly it is that this attribute is supposed to mean then.

Re: Atom and bidi

On 4/10/06 1:03 AM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A dir=rtl on the content element establishes the base direction for the content but, just as with xml:lang, the content itself can override the value using whatever mechanisms are native to the content type. xml:lang doesn't go to

Re: Atom and bidi

If I specify something like: content type=xhtml dir=ltr div xmlns=... This is some left-to-right text with a a href=... dir=rtlright-to-left link/a /div /content The behavior depends a large part on how the content is displayed. Typically, I would expect the above to be equivalent

Re: Atom and bidi

On 4/10/06 3:44 AM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either way, the behavior of the dir on the anchor is unmodified and standard (X)HTML rules apply. so how might you code this: phere is some ltr text, with a link with a href=..rtl-text/a which links to a document which is

Re: Atom and bidi

Nothing, there is no hreflang analog for dir, nor is there any pressing need for such. - James Eric Scheid wrote: On 4/10/06 3:44 AM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either way, the behavior of the dir on the anchor is unmodified and standard (X)HTML rules apply. so how might you

Re: Atom and bidi

Yep, I'll work up a pace. - James Paul Hoffman wrote: This is sounding, smelling, and tasting like a rathole. Having fought the bidi wars in IDN, this doesn't surprise me. It's terribly difficult, and we don't have any good examples of formats or protocols that have gotten it right in a

Re: Atom and bidi

James M Snell wrote: Yep, I'll work up a pace. I find this more than a little pushy. I found the problem, I think I have an answer, I've already written the code, and I said I would deal with it earlier today: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg18874.html -Rob

Re: Atom and bidi

Robert Sayre wrote: James M Snell wrote: Yep, I'll work up a pace. I find this more than a little pushy. Cool! I found the problem, I think I have an answer, I've already written the code, and I said I would deal with it earlier today: Then write up a pace. We can compare the two

Re: Atom and bidi

James M Snell wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: James M Snell wrote: Yep, I'll work up a pace. I find this more than a little pushy. Cool! ??? Then write up a pace. We can compare the two options and figure out the best way to move forward. I am not sure what you

Re: Atom and bidi

Robert Sayre wrote: [snip] Then write up a pace. We can compare the two options and figure out the best way to move forward. I am not sure what you are talking about. You said: I think I have an answer, I've already written the code, and I said I would deal with it earlier today If

Re: Atom and bidi

James M Snell wrote: If that's the case, it would be great if you would provide a concrete proposal that we can discuss or at least describe exactly what you're looking for. You seem to think I'm obligated to participate in a volumetocracy[1] in order to get my work done. I'm not, so

Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough: atomCommonAttributes = attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

Tuesday, October 3, 2006, 12:20:01 AM, James Snell wrote: I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough:

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

Le 3 oct. 06 à 08:20, James M Snell a écrit : I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough: atomCommonAttributes =

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

text. Hmm, that sounded a bit odd. I don't want to stop people from using bidi... I was trying to say that implementations can support Unicode bidi and HTML bidi today without any change to the spec, and that they seem more powerful than an Atom bidi attribute. -- Dave

Re: Atom and bidi

another method for bidi text. Hmm, that sounded a bit odd. I don't want to stop people from using bidi... I was trying to say that implementations can support Unicode bidi and HTML bidi today without any change to the spec, and that they seem more powerful than an Atom bidi attribute.