Idris Samawi Hamid wrote:
> 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.
i think that we should stick to things that make sense; with tex we're
often talking of tagged sources and anything ambiguous should be tagged;
in a sense this is not even related to arab at all, take an url ... i
can imagine an url-algorithm, but it could never be perfect (just see
what some programs that try to do it sometimes make of it)
if for instance ( ) are officially not symbols but open/close thingies,
then we need to deal with them (although i then wonder why we have no
proper open/close code point for them instead of reusing the ascii ()
which have for users some expected visual appearance, but in that
respect unicode puzzles me on a daily basis)
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
