Hi.
From: Peter Edberg
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:22:33 -0700
> In the PRI 205 forum - http://www.unicode.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=33 - I
> have posted a draft summary of feedback on Level
> Direction Mark received to date originally on the PRI 205 page
> (http://www.unicode.org/review/pri
In the PRI 205 forum - http://www.unicode.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=33 - I have
posted a draft summary of feedback on Level Direction Mark received to date
originally on the PRI 205 page (http://www.unicode.org/review/pri205/, this
feedback moved to the forum) and subsequently in this discussio
Den 2011-09-22 10:54, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> 2011/9/21 Richard Wordingham :
>> LRE...PDF acts like a character with BiDi class L, and likewise for
>> RLE...PDF. I suppose the principle is that in a right-to-left context a
>> word composed of letters of BiDi class L should be treated like a
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:21:38 Peter Edberg wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:59:47 Peter Edberg wrote:
>>> However, it does not handle the situation in which the date is part
>>> of other text, and may be preceded or followed by Arabic lette
2011/9/21 Richard Wordingham :
> LRE...PDF acts like a character with BiDi class L, and likewise for
> RLE...PDF. I suppose the principle is that in a right-to-left context a
> word composed of letters of BiDi class L should be treated like an
> embedding.
That's where I think this behavior is wr
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:48:45 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2011/9/20 Richard Wordingham :
> Because it also has practical applications (for example look at the
> currenct Wikimedia bug when it wants to display lists of category
> names, and insert a separator between them: there's no reliable
>
2011/9/20 Richard Wordingham :
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:44:27 +0200
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/19 Peter Edberg :
>
>> > The whole point
>> > of LDM was to be able to create semi-structured elements such as
>> > the example in UAX #9 section 5.6 *without* knowing in advance
>> > the direc
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:44:27 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2011/9/19 Peter Edberg :
> > The whole point
> > of LDM was to be able to create semi-structured elements such as
> > the example in UAX #9 section 5.6 *without* knowing in advance
> > the direction context in which the element would be
Den 2011-09-19 04:53, skrev "Peter Edberg" :
> Philippe,
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
...
>>
>> Note also that there's no way to specify a weak direction for the
>> internal content of embedded fields, as we don't have the WDE..PDF
>> mechanism described in the UBA
2011/9/19 Peter Edberg :
>> Note also that there's no way to specify a weak direction for the
>> internal content of embedded fields, as we don't have the WDE..PDF
>> mechanism described in the UBA for now (but may be we could emulate it
>> using RLE,B..PDF or LRE,B..PDF (but with which B character
2011/9/19 Peter Edberg :
> Philippe,
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/17 Peter Edberg :
>>> 2. Philippe Verdy suggests that the intent of LDM is to change the bidi
>>> class of a CS such as '/' to match the bidi class of the preceding EN
>>> character. Actually,
Richard,
On Sep 17, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:59:47 -0700
> Peter Edberg wrote:
>
> I'll take this argument first.
>
>> At any rate, it seems that if LDM-like behavior is needed, there is
>> no alternative using existing controls. As Kent Karlsson say
Philippe,
On Sep 17, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2011/9/17 Peter Edberg :
>> 2. Philippe Verdy suggests that the intent of LDM is to change the bidi
>> class of a CS such as '/' to match the bidi class of the preceding EN
>> character. Actually, the intent of LDM is to act like e
2011/9/18 Richard Wordingham :
>> Furthermore, for the example in UAX #9 section 5.6, using RLM and LRM
>> around the '-' causes reordering of the adjacent spaces, while using
>> LDM before each '-' solves the layout problem.
>
> Of course, the problem of spaces is cured if one uses HYPHEN-MINUS,
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:59:47 -0700
Peter Edberg wrote:
I'll take this argument first.
> At any rate, it seems that if LDM-like behavior is needed, there is
> no alternative using existing controls. As Kent Karlsson says in the
> e-mail discussion, "All the workarounds w.r.t. LDM depend on the
>
2011/9/17 Peter Edberg :
> 2. Philippe Verdy suggests that the intent of LDM is to change the bidi class
> of a CS such as '/' to match the bidi class of the preceding EN character.
> Actually, the intent of LDM is to act like either LRM or RLM depending on the
> direction associated with the cu
2011/9/15 Kent Karlsson :
> Back to the original issue of this thread: All the workarounds w.r.t. LDM
> depend on the directionality of neighbouring characters, not directly on
> the embedding level direction.
If so, you can mark the slash in "12/31" with LDM, it will not solve
any ambiguity. The
Den 2011-09-14 19:56, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> 2011/9/14 Kent Karlsson :
>>> And how will you define what is an "implicit" LDM ? For example "1.2"
>>
>> Did you actually READ my submission re. the PRI? Seems like not. There is a
>> suggestion there (which requires a bit of character contextual
2011/9/14 Kent Karlsson :
>> And how will you define what is an "implicit" LDM ? For example "1.2"
>
> Did you actually READ my submission re. the PRI? Seems like not. There is a
> suggestion there (which requires a bit of character contextual processing).
> It is also possible to use a different a
I can give another example where there are ambiguities on how to
resolve the direction of characters other then CS.
Just look at this page on Wikisource (this is a paragraph in French
containing Hebrew words in a French enumeration, look at where the
comma separations are placed). Note that I'm no
Den 2011-09-14 19:05, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> 2011/9/14 Kent Karlsson :
>> Because that stability guarantee says "The Bidi_Class property values will
>> not be further subdivided." I'm not too keen on the word "subdivided" here,
...
> That's absolutely not the way I understand it, notably if
2011/9/14 Kent Karlsson :
> Because that stability guarantee says "The Bidi_Class property values will
> not be further subdivided." I'm not too keen on the word "subdivided" here,
> but it (here) means there will be *no additions* to the set of values for
> the Bidi_class property. Not even for ne
Den 2011-09-14 03:31, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> 2011/9/13 Kent Karlsson :
...
>> for the new one, and to the paragraph bidi level for the three old ones). (I
>> know, this would be a form of "option 1" in the PRI.)
>
> You can turn it as you want it is still a splitting of the bidi class
> if y
2011/9/14 Richard Wordingham :
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:31:14 +0200
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> In other words, the UTC policy about the stability of Bidi classes
>> should be minimally relaxed, by rewording into something like:
>>
>> « The bidi class property value of any assigned code point
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:31:14 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> In other words, the UTC policy about the stability of Bidi classes
> should be minimally relaxed, by rewording into something like:
>
> « The bidi class property value of any assigned code point is
> IMMUTABLE (and will never change
2011/9/13 Kent Karlsson :
> I'm not at all sure the suggested workaround works in general, and not just
> in a few examples.
>
> Another possibility, as long as we are just "brain-storming" a bit here, is
> to use the bidi category S (Segment Separator) for the LEVEL DIRECTION MARK
> (which would b
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:31:06 +0200
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> I'm not at all sure the suggested workaround works in general, and
> not just in a few examples.
I look forward to your counterexamples where LDM works. Can we assume
that the fields are fit to begin and end with characters with the same
I'm not at all sure the suggested workaround works in general, and not just
in a few examples.
Another possibility, as long as we are just "brain-storming" a bit here, is
to use the bidi category S (Segment Separator) for the LEVEL DIRECTION MARK
(which would be a normally invisible (bidi) format
-On [20110913 15:22], Philippe Verdy (verd...@wanadoo.fr) wrote:
>something may be wrong in the Bidi algorithm or in its implementation
>on Windows when using Uniscribe (in Chrome), or in the browser itself.
A friend of mine recently joined Google and is working on the Chrome project
in order to g
In that case, there remains only one alternative: encoding new
characters with another (existing) Bidi class. The problem will
immediately come: you'd need to duplicate lots of characters (it could
be the case for all visible characters, including whitespaces, that
are neither letters or digits or
On 9/13/2011 6:01 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Unfortunately, adding controls would imply the creation of new Bidi
classes for them (and forgetting the stability policy about them,
which was published too soon before solving evident problems).
The first part is correct, and giving up stability to
> From: Philippe Verdy
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:01:57 +0200
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
>
> Your example for reversing the direction of fields in notations like "
> 1.2.3 " where the dot should be interpreted as a number separator and
> not a decimal separator does not seem to work: instead of s
2011/9/13 Richard Wordingham :
> This is a summary of what I have already submitted for Public Review
> Issue 205 (http://www.unicode.org/review/pri205/). I am mentioning it
> here in case there is something wrong with my idea.
>
> My basic idea is that one does not a 'level direction mark'. The
This is a summary of what I have already submitted for Public Review
Issue 205 (http://www.unicode.org/review/pri205/). I am mentioning it
here in case there is something wrong with my idea.
My basic idea is that one does not a 'level direction mark'. The
desired effect can be achieved by embedd
34 matches
Mail list logo
