TK> Besides aethetic problem whether bidi-support layer should be located
TK> in terminal emulator or other layers,
It's not merely an aesthetic problem.
Unicode BIDI semantics are not adapted to terminal emulators. I do
not fully understand ISO 6429 BIDI behaviour, and at any rate I'd be
nervous about implementing something that nobody seems to have an
opinion about. I do not think that MLTerm's BIDI is documented
anywhere; if they are, please point me to the document.
I have no a priori objection to some form of BIDI support at the
terminal emulator level; but I do have an objection to some under-
specified, hacked-up support.
On the other hand, the behaviour of curses or slang or Emacs in the
presence of BIDI seem quite clear; I cannot help but wonder why it is
that BIDI developers insist on hacking up terminal emulators rather
than working on ncurses.
TK> there are a few problems for Robert Brady's patch to be merged
TK> into the xterm.
Rewriting FriBidi under a different license should be no problem. But
the behaviour of FriBidi is profoundly inadequate for terminal
emulation.
Juliusz
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
