On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:30:18AM +0900, Gaspar Sinai wrote: > Requiring and freezing algorithms in a standard is even > more dangerous today's good algorithm is tomorrow's bad > algorthm. > > I think not having bi-bi alrogithm,
How could not having a bidi algorithm improve things??? Then you'll just get multiple algorithms, the most common of which will be the current one. > It would make the RL people feel better too - they would > feel they were asked when the standard was made for them. I take it they should have sent out people to interview the man on the street? I sure wasn't asked when my language was being implemented for computers. They asked people who used and implemented RTL scripts. As was mentioned on the Unicode list, a reverisable BIDI algorithm is not feasible with explicit BIDI markers, which some scripts that can be written both ways need. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED], dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber) Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc." -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
