> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:39:57 +0200 > From: Kent Karlsson <[email protected]> > CC: <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > > Well, I think there is a silent (but reasonable, I would say) assumption > that mirroring does not change the width of a glyph... I would think that if > a font does not fulfill that, then you have a font problem (or mix of fonts > problem), not a bidi problem.
It would be considered as a misfeature if Emacs would fail to display a character just because it is from a different font. Of course, if the mirroring glyph comes from a very different font, the result will be ugly, but it is still legible, unlike if you just paint a hollow box with some hex number, or display only a part of the glyph because it didn't fit the window. IOW, the Emacs implementation of the UBA is an integral part of its display engine, and so it cannot say "it's a font problem, not a bidi problem", because eventually it becomes a display engine problem...
