Den 2011-09-14 03:31, skrev "Philippe Verdy" <[email protected]>:
> 2011/9/13 Kent Karlsson <[email protected]>: ... >> for the new one, and to the paragraph bidi level for the three old ones). (I >> know, this would be a form of "option 1" in the PRI.) > > You can turn it as you want it is still a splitting of the bidi class > if you change the behavior of class S like this. I did write that it was a version of the PRIs "option 1"! > Onve again, if you > want to encode new characters, why would you restrict yourself to > reusing an existing bidi class just to break it? Because that stability guarantee says "The Bidi_Class property values will not be further subdivided." I'm not too keen on the word "subdivided" here, but it (here) means there will be *no additions* to the set of values for the Bidi_class property. Not even for new characters. As far as I can tell, there is no restriction saying that the bidi algorithm cannot look at code points as well as bidi category values. But as I pointed out in my submitted response to the PRI, the bidi algorithm has "glaring deficiencies" that I think would be best handled by going for the third option: "bidi v. 2", where these "glaring deficiencies" can be addressed; to a large extent by the use of *implicit* LDMs (and *implicit* LRE/RLEs and PDFs). /Kent K
