[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PuTTY Testing
- To: developer at arabeyes dot org
- Subject: Re: PuTTY Testing
- From: "ahmad khalifa" <ahmadkhalifa at hotmail dot com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:07:23 +0000
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
> > behdad ?
> > are FriBidi's test files (and their results) the way to go ? or that
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.
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 ?
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.