On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > Can we put all the technical issues on the table to have a go at it ? > There are certainly enough technically skilled people interested in making > this happen to where it just might become a reality given enough direction > from XFree proper on what is acceptable and what is not (strictly from a > technical point of view).
Read below... > (*) Mr. Brady's patch might require pulling fribidi externally instead > of it being an integral part of the code (or replacing fribidi with > IBM's ICU (license issues) altogether). I definitely prefer linking externally to FriBidi, despite its license problems. ICU is in C++, and is really heavyweight. Other solutions: 1) Try to change FriBidi's license: very hard, because of code borrowing from many different LGPL-ed projects. But most of the borrowed code is copyright FSF, we are a step ahead if we can convince them. 2) Rewrite a Bidi engine from scratch, without license problems: much harder, you can't imagine how hard it was to get FriBidi Unicode compliant. > So what's next ? How can we best align all these efforts and the abundant > need and want for Bidi+xterm into realizing this functionality (even if it > were optional) ? We can't start a new academic project without reading all that there exists. Similarly, you won't get anywhere if you don't read the only existing Bidi standard for terminals (ECMA TR/53). To read it, you will also need a copy of ISO 6429 at hand. Markus's page on Unicode links to both. roozbeh _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
