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 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 going to be a waste of time. Nobody is going to
get them right.
Regards
James
