Re: Behaviour of U+002F in IE and Mozilla

[Hooman Mehr]

The behavior was changed between Unicode 4.0 and 4.0.1!  With the
latest Unicode version, using Persian digits, in a Persian
paragraph, something like 1361/07/05 will render 1361/07/05, not
05/07/1361, which is a good thing.  (Using Arabic digits instead
of Persian digits most probably result in the other way).
Do you know which systems actually implement 4.0.1 bidi algorithm? Does 
installing your latest FriBidi library completely address this issue on 
Linux?

Hooman Mehr
___
PersianComputing mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing

Re: Behaviour of U+002F in IE and Mozilla

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Ali A. Khanban wrote:

 Hi,

 Since the Arabic thousand separator, U+066B, is not commonly in use,
 most of Persian sites use /, U+002F, instead. The behaviour, when it
 is used between numbers, is different in IE (and MS Office) and Mozilla.
 Which one is the correct one?

The behavior was changed between Unicode 4.0 and 4.0.1!  With the
latest Unicode version, using Persian digits, in a Persian
paragraph, something like 1361/07/05 will render 1361/07/05, not
05/07/1361, which is a good thing.  (Using Arabic digits instead
of Persian digits most probably result in the other way).

 Best
 -ali-

--behdad
  behdad.org
___
PersianComputing mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing