From: Gregg Reynolds (unicode@arabink.com)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 19:07:41 CDT
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Gregg Reynolds" <unicode@arabink.com>
>
>> Where this idea of "inherent" bidirectionality got started I'd like to
>> know, so I could deliver a scrumptious knuckle sandwich.
>
>
> ...
>
>> I hope you or somebody will be kind enough to explain in some detail
>> just how such new codepoints would cause problems. With an open mind,
>> please.
>
>
> I think you will find that here on the mailing list that can claim as
> members many of the people who you have overtly threatened
Overtly threatened?! Good grief, that never even occurred to me. I
guess I should have added a smiley. ;) I thought it was clear enough
that I was having a bit of fun, but maybe that wasn't clear. I dearly
hope nobody took it that way; if it did look that way, please forgive,
and fear not. I assumed that "inherent" Arabic bidirectionality was
invented in the wee hours of computer history, maybe in the early
sixties, so it never occurred to me that anybody on this list might take
it personally.
As far as open-mindedness is concerned, all I'm looking for is rational
argument, not YELLING or repeated unsupported assertions. I really do
not understand the assertions that e.g. rtl digits would be a big
problem, for reasons that I've explained on other messages. Which makes
me think there's something I'm overlooking. That's all. Then again, I
really do not understand why anybody would think RTL languages are
inherently bidi, so maybe there's no point.
-g
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 19:10:10 CDT