[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call
>From the example, I am not sure what the feed author wants. So far there are only two directionalities allowed, left-to-right and right-to-left. In the example, the directionality of atom:entry is "rtl", there is no reason for the author to reset the directionality with an empty string. He should either change the directionality to "ltr" in atom:content or keep "rtl" by not using any "dir" attribute in atom:content.
On the other hand, I don't think always allowing direction guessing is good since guessing is not allowed in HTML and XHTML content.
For example:
<entry xml:lang="ar">
<title>مفتاح معايير الويب!</title>
<content type="xhtml">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";><span xml:lang="ar">مفتاح معايير الويب!</span></div>
</content>
<rights xml:lang="en">Copied from http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-inline-bidi-1.html</rights>
</entry>
If direction guessing is activated, <title>مفتاح معايير الويب!</title> will be displayed as !مفتاح معايير الويب. However, the direction guessed MUST NOT be inherited to the XHTML content.
So, I think a claficifiation in the Direction Guessing Section is needed.
For example:
The "dir" attribute SHALL be used when directionality is necessary to be changed. However, for compatibility with existing Atom documents that rely on direction guessing, user agents MAY perform direction guessing in Atom documents that do not contain a "dir" attribute but they MUST NOT do so when Atom documents contain a "dir" attribute.
Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Franklin Tse" <peaceable_whale@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "atom-syntax" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>; "atom-protocol" <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 13 April, 2007 11:23
Subject: Re: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call
>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" <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Franklin Tse" <peaceable_whale@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "atom-syntax" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>; "atom-protocol" <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
>> 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" <duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>; "Franklin Tse" <peaceable_whale@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: "atom-syntax" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>; "atom-protocol" <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
>>>> 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:duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>