17866 2012-07-18 07:08:43 +0000 i18n-ISSUE-124: Wording on avoidance of Unicode control characters 2012-09-28 18:40:31 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED NEEDSINFO P3 normal Unsorted 16983 1 contributor ian addison ian mike public-i18n-core contributor oldest_to_newest 70202 0 contributor 2012-07-18 07:08:43 +0000 This was was cloned from bug 16983 as part of operation convergence. Originally filed: 2012-05-07 18:19:00 +0000 Original reporter: Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com> ================================================================================ #0 Addison Phillips 2012-05-07 18:19:46 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.2.6 Requirements relating to bidirectional-algorithm formatting characters http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/content-models.html#requirements-relating-to-bidirectional-algorithm-formatting-characters This note: -- For convenience, where possible authors will likely prefer to use the dir attribute, the bdo element, and the bdi element, rather than maintaining the bidirectional-algorithm formatting characters manually. -- We would prefer if it were rephrased slightly to read: -- For convenience, where possible authors should use the dir attribute, the bdo element, and the bdi element, rather than maintaining the bidirectional-algorithm formatting characters manually. -- We would also like it to be removed from a note and made normative (hence the use of "should"). ================================================================================ #1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-05-08 00:31:26 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "should" means that it's a requirement. If it's a requirement, it's not for convenience. Why would we make it a requirement? ================================================================================ #2 Addison Phillips 2012-05-08 00:43:53 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed it is normative (and we noted that in our comment). Since this directed at authors as a requirement upon them. The weasel wording surrounding the normative SHOULD will not be ignored ;-) ================================================================================ #3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-05-10 17:53:54 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes but why? ================================================================================