On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> Gaspar Sinai scripsit:
>
> > The following page contains my view of Unicode
> > BIDI algorithm (with screenshots).
> >
> > http://www.yudit.org/security/
>
> Oooo-kay. This is not a Unicode problem per se: it is about
> embedded text vs. text that is not embedded. The Yudit and
> IE versions are displaying a text (Java code) that is essentially in
> Latin script (LTR) with some RTL inclusions. However, when
> the Java application actually runs, it displays three
> separate and distinct texts, each of which is an RTL text
> with some LTR inclusions. They are assumed to be RTL
> text, by the bidi rules, because they begin with a strong
> RTL character.
>
> Similar things happen when you construct XML documents
> with RTL element names: the bidi rules, which are meant
> for true text and not computer-readable stuff, sometimes
> produce visually confusing results.
So it is perfectly ok? I can make a non-ebedded example too.
I do not have time to make childish examples and screenshots
to get through my point. I have a job to do and text processing
is just my hobby.
The rendering problems are all side effects of the
unicode bi-di algorithm. If unicode bidi algorithm would
be proven to be reversable (logical->display ; display->logical)
I would not go to bed worrying about my signed documents.
Thats my view of the problem.
Cheers
gaspar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Feb 03 2002 - 20:57:36 EST