The bdi (bidi isolate) element, added in HTML5 to ease inserting RTL text into an LTR page or vice-v... #1131

Open
Fyrd opened this Issue May 12, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@Fyrd
Owner

Fyrd commented May 12, 2015

The bdi (bidi isolate) element, added in HTML5 to ease inserting RTL text into an LTR page or vice-versa. I do not know if it will be supported in IE10, and I am not sure how far back its current support in WebKit and Firefox goes.


This issue was imported from Google Moderator

Moderator votes: +14
Issue added by Aharon Lanin on 2012-04-03
To vote this issue up or down, simply include +1 or -1 in your comment.

@fabi1cazenave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Schweinepriester

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Schweinepriester

Schweinepriester Nov 5, 2015

Contributor

+1

Contributor

Schweinepriester commented Nov 5, 2015

+1

@cben

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cben

cben Nov 19, 2015

A much wider question is whether there is support for bidi isolation at all.
Also reletad: dir="auto" [#1479] and unicode-bidi: isolate / isolate-override [#996].

Spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#the-dir-attribute
Comprehensive doc: http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/

As a developer I'd want answers to 2 "big" questions:

  • In which browsers dir=auto autodetecs base direction and layout (by flipping CSS start<->end)?
  • Which browsers support bidi isolation?

I'm aware of 4 ways that are supposed to trigger bidi isolation:

  1. HTML5 redefined that any element with dir="rtl"/"ltr"/"auto" should be bidi-isolated.
  2. <bdi> element. AFAICT, it's specced to be exactly equivalent to <span dir="auto">.
  3. unicode-bidi: isolate / isolate-override CSS.
  4. Unicode 6.3 RLI..PDI / LRI..PDI / FSI..PDI control characters.

It seems that (1) and (2) have roughly same support [basically everyone except IE] and I'd expect to see them on same page; any differences can be covered by footnotes.
[According to http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Html-bidi-isolation#Internet_Explorer_behaviour,
IE<=7 had one non-standard behavior and IE>=8 has a different non-standard behaviour, both somewhere between old embedding and isolation]

(3) probably deserves a separate page. While currently all but usual IE/Edge suspects have [prefixed only!] support, it might have landed in different versions than dir=... and bdi triggering isolation?
There is a relation though: given (3) it's easy to force support for (1) and (2).
[W3C's tests: http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repo/results/writing-modes-bidi]

(4) Is discouraged, doesn't interact well with markup and CSS. Quick testing suggests it only works on Firefox. I also suspect support will depend on OS and not just browser. IMHO it's fine to omit.

cben commented Nov 19, 2015

A much wider question is whether there is support for bidi isolation at all.
Also reletad: dir="auto" [#1479] and unicode-bidi: isolate / isolate-override [#996].

Spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#the-dir-attribute
Comprehensive doc: http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/

As a developer I'd want answers to 2 "big" questions:

  • In which browsers dir=auto autodetecs base direction and layout (by flipping CSS start<->end)?
  • Which browsers support bidi isolation?

I'm aware of 4 ways that are supposed to trigger bidi isolation:

  1. HTML5 redefined that any element with dir="rtl"/"ltr"/"auto" should be bidi-isolated.
  2. <bdi> element. AFAICT, it's specced to be exactly equivalent to <span dir="auto">.
  3. unicode-bidi: isolate / isolate-override CSS.
  4. Unicode 6.3 RLI..PDI / LRI..PDI / FSI..PDI control characters.

It seems that (1) and (2) have roughly same support [basically everyone except IE] and I'd expect to see them on same page; any differences can be covered by footnotes.
[According to http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Html-bidi-isolation#Internet_Explorer_behaviour,
IE<=7 had one non-standard behavior and IE>=8 has a different non-standard behaviour, both somewhere between old embedding and isolation]

(3) probably deserves a separate page. While currently all but usual IE/Edge suspects have [prefixed only!] support, it might have landed in different versions than dir=... and bdi triggering isolation?
There is a relation though: given (3) it's easy to force support for (1) and (2).
[W3C's tests: http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repo/results/writing-modes-bidi]

(4) Is discouraged, doesn't interact well with markup and CSS. Quick testing suggests it only works on Firefox. I also suspect support will depend on OS and not just browser. IMHO it's fine to omit.

@MoyanGG

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

MoyanGG commented Nov 11, 2016

+1

@rudijuri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rudijuri

rudijuri Jan 20, 2017

Now, only Edge/IE10 doesn't support this element: I would be conducive to reconsider the exclusion of bdi tag

Now, only Edge/IE10 doesn't support this element: I would be conducive to reconsider the exclusion of bdi tag

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment