>From: Gavin Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>In the I18N draft group, we discussed whether they should be markup,
>>>or codes, and decided on markup, because they are not really
>>The way I see it, either you implement Unicode or you don't. I don't think
>>you can pick and choose. This is what standards are all about - after a
>>thorough and lengthy discussions, a concensus has been reached, and now
>>we want to move on. I don't see why we should reopen this discussion.
>Sorry, I should have been clearer (too many late working nights
>The reason for making the BIDI formatting codes markup is that we
>wanted to make the functionality they offer available in encodings
>other than Unicode (the I18N draft does not require Unicode support
>for anything other than numeric character reference resolution).
Just make them named character entities. And this will help not only
with the bidi characters, but also with the ZWJ and ZWNJ and many
other characters. In principle, each of the ISO 8859-x codes covers at most 192
characters, so there are some 59,808 that require a symbolic name (assuming ca.
60,000 characters in UCS-2 -).
The internet draft seems to associate ZWJ and ZWNJ with bidi. While
they are useful in Arabic, and to a lesser extent in Hebrew, they are not bidi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT