Yes, I have already proposed an agenda item for the next UTC, to get this
fix into 3.1.
Mark Davis, IBM GCoC, Cupertino
(408) 777-5850 [fax: 5891], email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Roozbeh Pournader <email@example.com> on 01-17-2001 12:56:57
To: Mark Davis/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Unicode List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Behdad
Esfahbod <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: A real bug in bidi
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Mark Davis wrote:
> Doug Felt here confirmed that this is a bug in the implementation
> While it does not affect the conformance of the main algorithm, it would
> affect people trying to use that optimization strategy. (we here don't
> that strategy, by the way). We think that the implementation strategy
> be changed to still work, but for now we would recommend removing the
Will there be note in the online version of the technical report to
mention this? There may be poor developers just like us ;) who won't know
that these recommendations will make their application nonconforming.
In our case, we read and reread the spec many times, even by developers
who had not heard about the Unicode bidi before, because we simply thought
that it's our implementation or interpretation bug.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:18 EDT