Re: Unicode and Security

From: Moe Elzubeir (Elzubeir@cobaf.coba.unt.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 12:34:44 EST

Previous message: Rick McGowan: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Maybe in reply to: Gaspar Sinai: "Unicode and Security"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Next in thread: ろ〇〇〇〇ろ〇〇〇: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Reply: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Hello,

Before you call this thread a waste of time, and out of curiosity.. what

were the considerations put forth which determined the way the bidi
algorithm is (uax#9). Ie. what were the pros and cons of a reversible
bidi?

Also, who make up the 'bidi community'? The users or the developer(s)
of the bidi algorithm?

Thank you

--
Mohammed Elzubeir
>>> "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com> 02/04/02 10:13AM >>>
> >Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
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

Previous message: Rick McGowan: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Maybe in reply to: Gaspar Sinai: "Unicode and Security"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Next in thread: ろ〇〇〇〇ろ〇〇〇: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Reply: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode and Security"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 12:10:26 EST