>> This thread is a waste of time.
Gaspar> If unicode bi-di algorithm was reversable none of this would
Gaspar> happen. Software developers, who are flash and blood people, would
Gaspar> be able to do a clean room implementation of the algorithm and the
Gaspar> reverse of it. The correctness of the software could be
Gaspar> *automatically* checked by just reversing the view and checking it
Gaspar> against the bitstream.
Gaspar> Instead of the automatic check no there are test cases and if
Gaspar> there is a nasty bug the reply is, oh well, sorry for that, and
Gaspar> plug in another fix and test case.
Gaspar> I feel I saw this attitude before... Is it only me?
I don't understand your reasoning. Applying the bidi algorithm or a
higher-level protocol does not change the backing store. Applying the bidi
algorithm is essentially a one-way transformation, but the original
information need not be thrown away. Yudit differentiates the backing store
and the display, does it not?
And as for signing a Unicode document, the fact that the user is implicitly
signing the "__bitstream__" and not the "__document__" is probably the right
thing to do. To be meaningful, the data will be displayed the same
everywhere, barring incorrect renderers. And in the case of incorrect
rendering, it is the "__bitstream__" that remains correct, and that is what
the user signed.
A user types some text on a computer and signs it. Is the user signing the
idea expressed by the text or the presentation of the text? They are signing
the idea. The presentation can have all kinds of flaws that do not represent
the original idea, such as a printer that can't print the letter "e."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Leisher Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to
Computing Research Lab demand a lifeless, imitative style.
New Mexico State University
Box 30001, Dept. 3CRL -- Politics and the English Language,
Las Cruces, NM 88003 George Orwell
