Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Update of my previous mail mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Nicolas Krebs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: atom-syntax@imc.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:05:02 +0200 >James Snell wrote in http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

At 1:32 PM -0800 11/3/06, James M Snell wrote: Cool thx. I'll watch for it following the IETF meeting. Actually, the window opens again the first day of the meeting (Monday).

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Cool thx. I'll watch for it following the IETF meeting. - James Robert Sayre wrote: > James M Snell wrote: >> Robert, >> >> It's been a few weeks since this came up. I was wondering if you'd be >> able to give some kind of estimate on when you might have a chance to >> document what you had in

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

James M Snell wrote: Robert, It's been a few weeks since this came up. I was wondering if you'd be able to give some kind of estimate on when you might have a chance to document what you had in mind for mozilla/firefox/thunderbird. No pressure, of course, I just don't want this issue to stall

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Robert, It's been a few weeks since this came up. I was wondering if you'd be able to give some kind of estimate on when you might have a chance to document what you had in mind for mozilla/firefox/thunderbird. No pressure, of course, I just don't want this issue to stall out for lack of discus

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Yeah, for now I'm going to keep this bidi code off in an out of the way corner in the Abdera CVS until there's any more movement. Now that I've addressed a short term need I've had on my list for a while, I'll be holding off at least a few weeks to see what Sayre comes up with before deciding whe

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Well I'm glad somebody pointed it out because I certainly missed it. Anyway, for now I'm just checking for an unprefixed dir attribute. If and when RFC 4287 is ever updated I'll ammend my code accordingly. Regards James James M Snell wrote: I know there's no such thing :-)... which is preci

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

I know there's no such thing :-)... which is precisely why the code I implemented is temporary and experimental :-). - James Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:32:46 +0200, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> 2. Look for the xhtml:dir attribute > > There's no such thin

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:32:46 +0200, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. Look for the xhtml:dir attribute There's no such thing. (Except perhaps with this new XHTML Modularization madness, but that's best ignored.) -- Anne van Kesteren

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

I've modified my very preliminary impl to support the use of xhtml:dir and have checked in some code [1]. The impl is very rough and designed only to illustrate the basic behavior I have in mind. Right now, the code determines the direction of text using the following steps (in order): 1. Look

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Robert Sayre wrote: fwiw, I have no intention of reading the Snell bidi draft, or implementing what might be inside. As I've mentioned several times, I am already implementing a solution. I will document it and roll it onto the standards track as an update to RFC4287. To be clear, I have no

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

James M Snell wrote: Would you mind sharing some of the details with us now so that we can come to a common solution that works with more than just Firefox and Thunderbird? That is absurd. This message has used up my atom-syntax time for the moment, so I guess you'll have to wait, or use up

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Robert Sayre wrote: > [snip] > It'll work fine with everythign > Would you mind sharing some details? Is there code already in the mozilla CVS I can go look at? I have some code already written that I'd like to get checked into Abdera soon. I'd prefer that it match what other implementors are do

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

How kind of you. Would you mind sharing some of the details with us now so that we can come to a common solution that works with more than just Firefox and Thunderbird? I really can't imagine that it would all that different than what I've documented and it would be silly to come up with an alte

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

James M Snell wrote: How kind of you. Would you mind sharing some of the details with us now so that we can come to a common solution that works with more than just Firefox and Thunderbird? It'll work fine with everythign

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

That's certainly a strong option. - James James Holderness wrote: > > If you're going to require a separate namespace for bidi support, maybe > it's best to use XHTML 1.0 and just toss out the lro and rlo values. I > know I was originally pushing for those to be included, but now that > I've se

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

fwiw, I have no intention of reading the Snell bidi draft, or implementing what might be inside. As I've mentioned several times, I am already implementing a solution. I will document it and roll it onto the standards track as an update to RFC4287. -Rob James Holderness wrote: If you're g

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

If you're going to require a separate namespace for bidi support, maybe it's best to use XHTML 1.0 and just toss out the lro and rlo values. I know I was originally pushing for those to be included, but now that I've seen how inconsistent the bdo support is in browsers I think they're probably

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

Yves, thanks for the input, comments below. Yves Savourel wrote: > [snip] > Atom could use just the local its:dir attribute and be ITS conformant. > Ok. this is good to know. > > I noticed the values described in atompub-bidi-00 include "" and default to > it, while XHTML 1.0, XHTML 2.0, and

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

The key challenge with using ITS in Atom is its complexity and scope. Atom simply doesn't need to do that much. - James Nicolas Krebs wrote: > [snip] > XHTML 1.0 is the only specification which is not a working draft, but its > dir attribute does not allow "lro" and "rlo" values. > > I do not

Re: [atom-syntax] Atom bidi

To: atom-syntax@imc.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] James Snell wrote in http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg18925.html > To: atom-syntax atom-syntax@imc.org > Subject: Atom bidi > From: James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:20:28 -0700 > As a