On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:36:23AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 25 Nov 2005 04:03:59 +0200, guy keren wrote: > > > > mikhael, i don't realy understand your passion for "breaking the rules", > > but unlike what you think, there is still use of visual hebrew, and > > a lot of software still uses visual hebrew. your personal dislike of it > > should not be the basis for breaking things up. > > You accuse me of breaking something, but don't provide any real evidence > for it. What things would be broken if mailers treat charset=iso-8859-8 > as Logical? Not theoretically, please. Besides, we discuss interactive > programs here, that may add a button to switch from one interpretation > to another (in case it is a real and not just a theoretical problem).
But we also need to give sane defaults. And some forms of automated processing are always needed (printing email, for example). > > I am not sure whether you speak in the MIME or non-MIME context here when > you say "a lot of software uses visual hebrew"; you do not alaborate. > Dozens of unix programs work with utf-8 or iso-8859-8 as Logical. And I > guess software on Windows operates on windows-1255 that is Logical too. In MIME UTF-8 and windows-1255 (and ISO-8859-8-i) are logical Hebrew and ISO-8859-8 is visual Hebrew. Can you point to such a unix program that works with MIME Hebrew text in a different way? In fact, most unix programs don't need to present MIME-encoded text, so it is hardly relevant to them. The fact that a certain text editor supports bidi rendering for text encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-7, windows-1255, ISO-8859-8 or CP862 is hardly relevant. > > > if you want to apply a switch, you should remember that in a world of > > standards, there is a deprecation period for a feature, before it is being > > declared obsolete. > > Such deprecation period took place for many years (for different reasons, > mostly application use bidi and different encodings), and now we are in a > situation when no mailer intentionally sends visual Hebrew. Thus it is > safe to treat charset=iso-8859-8 as Logical, and simplify the rules. > iso-8859-8-i may be supported forever optionally, although discouraged. As I pointed out, sending ISO-8859-8-i is sub-optimal as well. If you have to send 8bit text, windows-1255 is a better choice, as it provides a minimal for of explicit bidi support (RTL and LTR). -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
