NS> Having read this widely popular thread :-) I'm still fuzzy about what
NS> the consensus was (if any)
I don't think there's any consensus yet. If I understood correctly,
the discussion may be summarised as follows:
- a number of people think that we should ``do BiDi in the terminal
emulator''. They were not willing (or not able?) to define what it
means to ``do BiDi in the terminal emulator'', instead pointing at the
Unicode BiDi algorithm (which is not designed for terminal emulators,
and may or may not be a sound basis for such applications). Nobody
produced an informed comment on ISO 6429 BiDi.
- everyone appeared to agree that there's a need for BiDi at the
curses/slang level. This means that the terminal emulator-level BiDi,
if any, must be switchable. For some reason, nobody seems interested
in implementing BiDi at the curses level (not sexy enough?).
- some people produced analogies with luit, which to me seems to
imply a lack of understanding of what luit does (luit has *no* notion
of cursor position). Unless I'm missing something, BiDi really
needs access to internal terminal emulator data.
You will doubtless agree that the current understanding of the issues,
as summarised above, is not a satisfactory basis for building
consensus.
Juliusz
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
