**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
from unicode2.apple.com [17.254.3.212]
----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with e414.sparta.lu.se.
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 4 days old
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
Reporting-MTA: dns; bz2.apple.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; e414.sparta.lu.se
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Will-Retry-Until: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from unicode.org (unicode2.apple.com [17.254.3.212])
by bz2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03977;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from agent@localhost)
by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22491;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:32:17 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-UML-Sequence: 18853 (2001-03-20 14:28:49 GMT)
From: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Unicode List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Michael Everson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:28:44 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Subject: RE: Unicode editing (RE: Unicode complaints)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Hmmm... I would say that my "WYSIWYG Unicode", or any other similar display
> format, is not fit for doing searching, sorting, spell checking, etc.
>
> For all these kinds of things I would convert text back to "proper Unicode"
> and go with standard algorithms.
If it were me, I would keep two copies who update each other when that's
needed. Or perhaps we should only keep the active paragraph in your
WYSIWYG format?
> > Ouch, something came to my mind just now: future versions of
> > Unicode may consider some meaning for new things, [...]
>
> And any visual layer like the one I was wondering about would fail to
> implement them until it is updated to do so.
>
> Generally, nobody will ever be able to come up with a piece of software that
> automatically upgrades itself to new standards.
I was talking about something else: we are not allowed to remove anything
from a file we're playing with, or we will become non-conformant. An old
editor that changes Lam+ZWJ+ZWNJ+ZWJ+Alef to Lam+Alef, simply because it
sees that they don't make any sense here will is non-conformant. And
standards people would say that they've warned us: You should keep the
code points intact, unless specifically asked by the user. So you should
keep everything you don't know about, including the information for
adjacent bidi runs with the same level: the next version may assign some
meaning to them, and you will become non-conformant as soon as that
version is out. (Or possibly I haven't got the conformance idea yet...)
