Idris Samawi Hamid wrote: > Granted. The main point is that we have to reinterpret bidi in way that > fits with TeX's/ConTeXt's needs, idiosyncracies, etc.... I don't believe > we need to treat the unicode bidi algorithm as canonical.
i think that we should stick to things that make sense; with tex we're often talking of tagged sources and anything ambiguous should be tagged; in a sense this is not even related to arab at all, take an url ... i can imagine an url-algorithm, but it could never be perfect (just see what some programs that try to do it sometimes make of it) if for instance ( ) are officially not symbols but open/close thingies, then we need to deal with them (although i then wonder why we have no proper open/close code point for them instead of reusing the ascii () which have for users some expected visual appearance, but in that respect unicode puzzles me on a daily basis) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________