On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:00:22PM +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > 1. When you say: [...] > > We're not saying that, Mark Davis is ;) oops ;) > > > But me and Behdad are saying that all are problematic in some way or > other. You only have a different opinion from some others about "which is > less bad"! Your different opinion from Mark Davis may also be because you > are trying to see that weird thing as a single word, which is not a single > word. > > [..] > Anyway, which way is to be followed, may have already been decided by the > Unicode Technical Commitee. Today has been the last day of their meeting. > Maybe so, but I still want to understand your paper ;) In Lemma 2, you say begin with citing the limitation on the maximum valid bidi embedding levels of the UAX#9. It is my impression that (0-61, effectively 62 max embedding levels) are more than sufficient (and so says the UAX#9). To quote it: "..Sixty-one levels is far moer than sufficient for ordering, even with mechanically generated formatting." I take this reference to mechanical formatting to refer to converting legacy text to Unicode compliant ones. Have you run any tests to prove this? Tried this on a corpus of text? If I understand your paper correctly, you are saying that you should apply the bidi algorithm, short of removing the explicit embedding and overriding codes, shape, then continue. Please do keep us posted on what the UTC comes up with. Thanks -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Mohammed Elzubeir | Visit us at: | | | http://www.arabeyes.org/ | | Arabeyes Project | Homepage: | | Unix the 'right' way | http://fakkir.net/~elzubeir/| ------------------------------------------------------- --- Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=elzubeir
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature