Re: PuTTY Testing

["ahmad khalifa" <ahmadkhalifa at hotmail dot com>]

> From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
> > --- ahmad khalifa <ahmadkhalifa at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   http://crl.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/ucdata.html
> > >
> > > so, which one should i consider the Standard ?
> >
> > I'd say the Unicode Reference Code is the golden model we'd like to 
> follow.
> >
> > > behdad ?
> > > are FriBidi's test files (and their results) the way to go ? or that 
> page ?
>
> That page is a bit old.  Unicode's reference implementation has
> changed their CapRTL recently too.  So unfortunately you need to
> check the bidi types and only then you can say who is right and
> who is wrong.  I would be happy if you give examples that FriBidi
> is not following the spec :).

i checked the refrence code's CapRTL with FriBidi'd they're the same.
as u know, there was putty7.exe which used the refrence code as
its bidi engine. so i compare that with my implementation using CapRTL
and they have _Identical_ results. i used FriBidi's test file.
but, putty7.exe (using the refrence code) and putty6.5.2 (using my code)
have different results from that page.

for example:
the page says  -10% CHANGE -> EGNAHC -10%
but both putty7 and putty6.5.2  do this: EGNAHC %10-

so which one is correct ? which one does FriBidi do ?

> --behdad


ak.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail