On 06/25/2012 01:42 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote: >> I disagree completely. The embedding control characters are designed for, >> well, embedding. > Correct. Good. But > As plain text has no concept of a paragraph, Well, that really depends on what you mean by "plain text". RLE/PDF are defined by the UBA (Unicode BiDi Algorithm), and it, clearly, does have a concept of a paragraph. > using \n, \n\n, > \r\n, \r\n\r\n, or any other convention for a paragraph is arbitrary. Technically true, but both irrelevant and misleading. Misleading because the choice of \n or \r\n was arbitrary, but is now standard. Irrelevant because we are talking about the UBA, not "plain text" (whatever that means). > So if any arbitrary part of the text is to be RTL (no matter if the > user calls it a paragraph or not) then it is to be marked as an > embedded RTL section. This is incorrect. It does not matter much what the user calls a paragraph, but if the /text editor/ calls a certain run a paragraph, then that is the case.
You make it sound as if, in the sequence "something <RLE> more something \n even more <PDF>", the third part, saying " even more" will have an RTL level. That will simply not be the case with any UBA conforming text editor, as UBA specifically says that any embedding levels are reset when the paragraph is terminated. This is because the embedding controls are *embedded* in the paragraph. In other words, a paragraph is a paragraph, with BiDi direction, and embedding is embedding. The two are not the same. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
