On 08/22/2011 12:21 PM, Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
I don't buy the assumption that all the world is either AAT, Graphite or Uniscribe.
Nobody asserted that either. It is only pointed out that major implementations are able to provide what you seek.
Anyhow, this discussion is going off topic, the issue is should Unicode specify an RTL PUA area, not whether some products, however respectable, provide a bypass.
I don't see why you call it a *bypass*. Only if the road in front of you presents obstacles and does not allow you to proceed further, you need to take a bypass. If we are considering the Standard as the road which we need to take, the road doesn't present any obstacle to using PUA characters as RTL, so Graphite etc are not providing a *bypass* but in fact just being good generous implementations that allow custom properties for the PUA as the Standard allows.
The request being made to allocate BC=R areas in the PUA is sure to generate an impression that conformant implementations should consider such a property normative, which then would violate the definition of the PUA that conformant implementations need not treat any property of the PUA as normative.
Returning to your concerns, it is being asserted that since implementations are *already* able to provide for custom properties for the PUA, there is *no* need for Unicode to specify an RTL PUA area and furthermore as such a specification would violate the definition of the PUA, it should also *not* be done. One both *need* not do it and *should* not do it.
-- Shriramana Sharma
