Re: Unicode plain text

From: Martin J. Duerst (
Date: Mon May 26 1997 - 08:16:02 EDT

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Otto Stolz wrote:

> On May 24, 11:04, Timothy Partridge <> wrote:
> > We seem to have two different requirements for plain text here.
> ...
> > The text has already been formatted by the author into lines and
> > paragraphs. (Just as I have done with this e-mail. [...]
> > Since NL usually does not denote any logical division in the text
> > it is extremely annoying if the BiDi algorithm treats it as a new
> > block.
> In contrary, it is annoying if it doesn't -- see below.

The example you give doesn't apply. Independently of whether
LS is a block separator or treated as whitespace, there will
never be any text part B a line higher than a text part A
when logically, text part A is before text part B. This is
the very basic principle of the BIDI algorithm.

What is affected by the decision whether LS is a block separator
or treated as whitespace is whether bidirectional embeding and
overwrite codes are terminated (at the block boundary) or not.
As long as you don't have any of these, the only effect may be
that in the absence of any other convention, the first character
of a block defines the block's base directionality. Thus if LS
is a block separator, you risk that the second part of the
paragraph has a different base directionality than the first.

Regards, Martin.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT