> It seems that you are not open for discussion. Taco, Hans, et al have > asked you for explanations why you believe your approach is better, but > you missed to provide facts.
I am open to discussions, and I think Hans said " a short description of the primitives is a good start" and I tried my first attempt by sending that doc explaining some of the primitives. > That is life, those who are doing the programming work have the rights > to make decisions, and without good arguments from other sides they will > do what they think best. True. > And since there are quite a lot working with Arabic texts here on the > list and it seems nobody chimed in with you, it seems that you are > having an even smaller ground. They still do not know much about the system that I am talking about. But I do not understand your purpose by saying that? Are you saying that it was a mistake that I decided to discuss about bidirectional algorithm? or you are putting me down and trying to tell me "get lost"? ok, if you wish so, I do then. > Anyway, if you come back with good arguments I am sure Taco and Hans and > Idris and whoever will take it up. I have not finished yet and I have not gone thorough all of the features of TeX-e-Parsi, so I do not know what are your points? _________________________________________________________________ Holiday cheer from Messenger. Download free emoticons today! http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=669758
_______________________________________________ dev-luatex mailing list [email protected] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-luatex
