Ok, just found time to continue the thread...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> It depends. Enough for what?
>
> Storing the level with each character is enough for generating *one* valid
> Unicode logical order. This logical string should have the same logical
> order as the origi
Jonathan Coxhead wrote:
>Consider
>
> RLE a b c PDF RLE d e f PDF
>
> in an LTR region (where a, b, ... are neutral). This displays as
>
> cbafed
No, I think it displays as:
fedcba
(Read on...)
> i e, 2 RTL runs in LTR order. If you encode that as
>
> a b c d
On 28 Mar 01, at 12:02, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > > struct MyWysiwygGlyph
> > > {
> > > wchar_t GlyphCode;
> > > int EmbeddingLevel;
> > > };
> > > I think that Roozbeh had something quite similar in mind.
> >
> > Yes. I was not sure that if that's enoug
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > struct MyWysiwygGlyph
> > {
> > wchar_t GlyphCode;
> > int EmbeddingLevel;
> > };
> > I think that Roozbeh had something quite similar in mind.
>
> Yes. I was not sure that i
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> struct MyWysiwygGlyph
> {
> wchar_t GlyphCode;
> int EmbeddingLevel;
> };
>
> I think that Roozbeh had something quite similar in mind.
Yes. I was not sure that if that's enough, but after
I was wondering whether storing the bidirectional embedding level together
with *each* character would have resulted in an excessive increase in the
size of the edit buffer. 'Cause, as someone recently noted, "size DOES
matter".
But, checking in the bidirectional algorithm
(http://www.unicode.or
Edward Cherlin wrote:
> >But, in this case, each *single* character in the block must be
> >independently flagged with the property, so that it retains
> it also if it is
> >copied&pasted somewhere else: the actual start and end codes
> will only be
> >generated when rebuilding the Unicode stri
ource is
the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, second ed. 1953. I hope it's not
significant that it doesn't appear in the 1979 edition.)
- Original Message -
From: "Edward Cherlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
Roozbeh Pournander wrote:
> If you open a file that contains two adjacent runs at the
> same level, will you make them one run when you write the file?
That was the idea. But only in the case when it is *really* an embedding
having the same directionality as the text where it is inserted. Like
At 9:30 AM -0800 3/17/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
[snip]
>But, although I mentioned rich text, what I really had in mind was plain
>text. Maybe in a rich text environment, where it is normal to get a run of
>text it and tag it with some property (e.g. underlined, bold, etc.), it
>would also be pos
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> I am not sure that I catch what you mean here.
>
> My simplified view was that each visual segment of text (i.e. one or more
> adjacent characters at the same level) should have the opposite
> directionality than the two segments around it.
If yo
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> I am not sure what you mean, but it sounds very similar to what you wanted
> to avoid.
That was a preface, for the next idea that you've somehow agreed to...
> Condition (a) clearly doesn't apply to applications whose purpose *is* to
> change the
12 matches
Mail list logo
