From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 17:25:12 CDT
Jony Rosenne wrote:
> I object. The proposal, were it to be accepted, would create havoc.
> 1) How would one tell, for example, if a 1 is an LTR 1 or an RTL 1?
Ok, I must be missing something here. If we have <digit-1> (defaulting
to LTR) and <digit-1-RTL>, what is the problem? Where is the havoc?
Maybe I'm just thick. If I were to write a Unicode editor, for example,
I would think the way to go would be to check the directionality of the
various characters before deciding how to position them graphically. So
if I encounter <digit-1-rtl>, I know it what it "means" (not really, in
Unicode), but more importantly, I know how to typeset it.
The user doesn't care if it is an LTR or RTL "1"; s/he only cares that
it means "one" and that it be typeset correctly. After all, the user
only ever "sees" it on screen. I truly don't see the problem. Having
RTL digits etc. - i.e., dispensing with the totally bogus bidi
requirement - would IMO create an absolute explosion of software in the
RTL world. How is that problematic?
I'm being perfectly serious, and possibly dense: I don't understand why
such codepoints would "create havoc". Please enlighten.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 17:28:34 CDT