On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mark Davis wrote: > > >Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug; > > This is not a bug; it is specifically cited in the Bidirectional > Conformance section of Chapter 3 as one of the ways a higher-level > protocol can override the BIDI algorithm. I otherwise agree with John > about the perversity (perversion ;-) of the examples. > > > change products or to change the standard and use > > a reversable bidi. > > The BIDI algorithm is not reversible, and could not be made reversible > without eliminating features that are important to the bidi community. > This was considered at the time the bidi algorithm was developed.
Hold on there! You admit that unicode alrgorithm is *really* not reversable? I was just bluffing because I just saw that their is no reverse algorithm published in the standard! Can you imagine the implications of this? Imagine somone signing a digital unicode document. He is looking at his viewer but what he signs is the ___bitstream___. So you claim that this guy who might have no connection to software industry at all will be able to run an algorithm - that does not exist - in his head? > This thread is a waste of time. If unicode bi-di algorithm was reversable none of this would happen. Software developers, who are flash and blood people, would be able to do a clean room implementation of the algorithm and the reverse of it. The correctness of the software could be *automatically* checked by just reversing the view and checking it against the bitstream. Instead of the automatic check no there are test cases and if there is a nasty bug the reply is, oh well, sorry for that, and plug in another fix and test case. I feel I saw this attitude before... Is it only me? Gaspar
