> >Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
This is not a bug; it is specifically cited in the Bidirectional
Conformance section of Chapter 3 as one of the ways a higher-level
protocol can override the BIDI algorithm. I otherwise agree with John
about the perversity (perversion ;-) of the examples.
> change products or to change the standard and use
> a reversable bidi.
The BIDI algorithm is not reversible, and could not be made reversible
without eliminating features that are important to the bidi community.
This was considered at the time the bidi algorithm was developed.
This thread is a waste of time.
Mark
—————
Πόλλ’ ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ’ ἠπίστατο πάντα — Ὁμήρου Μαργίτῃ
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaspar Sinai" <gsinai@yudit.org>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>; "Unicode List"
<unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 05:34
Subject: Re: Unicode and Security
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> > Gaspar Sinai scripsit:
> > > Now the exact same file is viewed with two different viewers
> > > at the bottom of this page:
> > >
> > > http://www.yudit.org/security/
> >
> > Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
> > it is failing to set the overall directionality to RTL even
> > though the first character is strongly RTL. The fact that
> > some implementations are buggy is hardly an argument against
> > either the use of bidi or Unicode.
>
> I am sorry but someone on this list has just said:
> +----------------------------------------------------
> |The bidi algorithm is anything but vague. Any
> |implementation can be rigorously tested against two
> |reference implementations, to ensure fully compatible
> |implementation.
> +----------------------------------------------------
> So does this mean that Microsoft does not rigorously
> test their products? Or does this mean the test is
> wrong? Or maybe the algorithm is vague?
>
> I expect at least one yes answer here.
>
> Come on guys this is only *one* example. And it
> happened in MS outlook too. (No more screenshots please
> none of my friends use that product any more).
>
> I am ready to publish regularily bad rendering of
> the *buggy* implementations of the non-vague unicode
> BIDI (or the non-buggy implementations of the *vague*
> BIDI - take your choice).
>
> I wonder which cost more to regualrily patch and
> change products or to change the standard and use
> a reversable bidi.
>
> It may take some time to find the bug - but the bug
> will be there...
>
> Cheers
> gaspar
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 10:52:28 EST