Roozbeh asked:
>
> Why are the Braille characters classified as "Other Neutral"s regarding
> bidi?
Because they were all given a general category of So ("Symbol Other"), and
the default bidi property for So is ON:
2801;BRAILLE PATTERN DOTS-1;So;0;ON;;;;;N;;;;;
No one spoke out for any implementation requirement that the Braille
pattern dots themselves needed to be given a strong left-to-right
directionality.
> Shouldn't they be Left-to-right? Does any Right-to-Left Braille
> exist anywhere in the world?
I doubt it. But if Marco is correct that Hebrew braille is left-to-right,
there could conceivably be some exemplary printed materials in
Hebrew, with braille examples, that might indicate that it would
be easier to treat bidirectional examples with the braille pattern
dots having the L bidi category rather than ON. But in any case,
this is likely to be a very minor textual case and could be easily
treated with directional overrides if the default behavior is
insufficient.
In braille texts per se the bidirectional ordering issue should never
arise, since braille is also a textual modality -- you cannot really
mix braille with right-to-left text. It is, instead, a representation
of *the* text, which presumably in Israel or in Arabic-script-using
countries could include mixtures of scripts that when printed would
be bidirectional. But represented in Braille these texts would surely
*not* be bidirectional, as that would make no sense as a textual
modality aimed at the blind.
--Ken
>
> --roozbeh
>
>
>
