> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:52:43 -0700 > From: Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> > CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected] > > > I agree, but let me try to say the same more concisely: > > > > A bracket pair is a pair of an opening paired bracket and a closing > > paired bracket characters within the same isolating run sequence, > > such that the Bidi_Paired_Bracket property value of the former > > character or its canonical equivalent equals the latter character > > or its canonical equivalent, and provided that a closing bracket is > > matched to the closest match candidate, disregarding any candidates > > that either already have a closer match, or are enclosed in a > > matched pair of other 2 bracket characters. > > > > > I think that this (or something like this) might work, but that we are > better off > splitting this into a definition and a rule as I have proposed in my > previous message.
Why not have the above _and_ a rule? The rule should be worded so as to help understanding the definition. But IMO it is not a good idea to have a rule as an integral part of the definition, because the two serve different purposes. And I think we should also point out explicitly that the brackets match non-hierarchically, as many readers will expect that they are, and will be confused. > In the rest of the bidi algorithm, rules are used to describe actions > taken on scanning text, and "resolving" bracket pairs is such a scan. Yes, but other definitions don't use rules as their integral parts. Why should this one be an exception? _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
