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:
> atomCommonAttributes =
> attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
> attribute xml:lang { atomLanguageTag }?,
> attribute dir { "rtl" | "ltr" }?,
> undefinedAttribute*
In the context of Atom, what's the problem with the Unicode bidi
control characters?
I suspect that browsers and standard OS text input widgets have better
support for Unicode bidi, than they do for a currently non-existing
Atom attribute.
Which elements would this help?
content, subtitle, summary, rights and title support HTML, so this
wouldn't be necessary for them.
updated, published, logo, id, and icon I would guess can cope
without.
extensions are responsible for their own namespace, I don't think
that we need to say what attributes can appear on an extension.
I think [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are the only
attributes that would really benefit.
Wouldn't Unicode bidi be more powerful than a single direction
element, that would restrict the field to a single direction?
As we depend on Unicode, then we can't really stop people from using
Unicode bidi. We can't stop people from using HTML/XHTML bidi. Or even
CSS bidi controls. I think we should think carefully before we
introduce yet another method for bidi text. Especially one that will
be incompatible with all existing Atom consumers.
--
Dave
