Hi, On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:36:00 -0600, Arthur Reutenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, we need not be too slavish: The Yudit author has pointed out areas >> where the bidi algorithm makes no sense or is deficient: >> >> http://www.yudit.org/bidi/surprise.html > > To be honest, this page dates back to half a dozen years ago and > reflects Gáspár Sinai's positions at that time; there are hints that he > has changed his mind at least slightly, as he started to make quite a > scandal about possible "security problems" in the bidi algorithm and > later backed off (http://yudit.org/security/). This is of course not to > say that the bidi algorithm is perfect, because it's not, but I don't > think that the link you quote makes a really strong point against it. > In particular, I find that some of the recommandations Sinai criticizes > are amazingly close to what we do in the TeX world ("formatting codes > should be inserted" => mark up the text with direction-switching > commands, etc.) 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. But I'm still studying the matter. Best Idris -- Professor Idris Samawi Hamid, Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Shi`i Studies Department of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
