147183 - Text shown inside JavaScript under title in IOL.co.il is aligned LTR rather than RTL

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[rn23]

In addition, the JavaScript is static, and does not roll.

Comment 1

[rn23]

Build=1.0 RC 3

Comment 2

[Olivier Cahagne]

I don't read hebrew, however, the text just below the logo shows the same in IE6
and Mozilla 2002052504 on Win2k (trunk).
The JavaScript scroller might be a Tech Evangelism issue (bad JavaScript code).

Comment 3

[rn23]

Attachment: The bad situation

Look just above my text at the JS text alignment.

Comment 4

[rn23]

Attachment: How it should be

Again, look just above my text. IE 6. That's how it should be.

Comment 5

[rn23]

Please look at the attachments (1.0 RC 2==1.0 RC 3 VS IE 6). They show the 
difference, ignoring the movement of the JS.

Comment 6

[Olivier Cahagne]

ok, sorry, I was looking at the wrong text, I identified the HTML code
responsible for this:

[...]
<marquee direction="up" dir="rtl"...
[...]

which is a IE-only tag (not even supported on MacIE).

Propose to move to Tech Evangelism or mark dupe of bug 80269.

Comment 7

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Do the standards specify what to do in a case like this? We have a table, with
no <dir> specified, therefore <dir=ltr> by inheritance of the default. Within
that there is <marquee ... dir="rtl"> and within that <span dir=rtl> with the text.

I would assume that since there is no legal block element with dir=rtl, we are
correct in aligning the text to the left.

Comment 8

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

By the way, the alignment becomes correct if I add |marquee {display: block;}|
to quirk.css.

Hixie, would that be a good or bad thing to do?

Comment 9

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

In my last comment, s/correct/right-to-left, as presumably expected/

Comment 10

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

Sure, add whatever rules you want for marquee to quirk.css. We might even want
to add them to html.css. dbaron? bz? Any opinions?

Comment 11

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Could someone test with IE and see whether marquee in fact behaves as a block 
element there?  If so, this seems fine to me as long as we also add a comment 
explaining what's up to prevent zealous people from removing the line in the 
future...

Comment 12

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Microsoft's own documentation says it's a block element:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/properties/display.asp.
bz, when you say "this" seems fine to me, are you referring to adding to
quirk.css or to html.css?

I'll take this bug back from evangelism, since we are moving towards a solution
by other means.

Comment 13

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

I would vote for html.css myself....  (sort of like <blink> that way).

Comment 14

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Attachment: Patch against html.css

Comment 15

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

dbaron, would you like to r= the patch?

Comment 16

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

r=hixie if you remove the quotes around "Microsoft extension".

Comment 17

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Attachment: Quotes removed

Done, but I would be interested to know why you requested this change.

Comment 18

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

Comment on attachment 85467 [details] [diff] [review]
Quotes removed

sr=jst

Comment 19

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

smontagu: I don't see why the quotes would be correct... you aren't quoting
anyone, the statement is not in doubt, and it is not a phrase with a double
meaning. I like our comments to be typographically correct. :-)

Comment 20

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Fix checked in. 

N.B: the only change here is to the alignment of the text. It still doesn't roll. 

Comment 21

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

>you aren't quoting anyone, 

I was quoting the MSDN URL I referenced in comment 12.

>the statement is not in doubt, and it is not a phrase with a double meaning.

Nevertheless, I have reservations about it, which are both grammatical and
political. I don't much like the use of nouns as adjectives in the first place
(though I am sure you could find plenty of cases where I use them that way
myself) and a phrase like "Microsoft extension" as opposed to something like
"extension made by Microsoft" seems IMHO to confer more official status and
legitimacy on the concept than I would like.

To paraphrase what someone said to me once about colloquial Hebrew, "There's no
such thing as 'Microsoft extensions to HTML'. There's only valid HTML and
invalid HTML".

Comment 22

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

fair enough... i'm not sure i agree though :-)

Comment 23

[(no longer active)]

Mass-assigning the new rtl keyword to RTL-related (see bug 349193).