John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:39:08PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
|
| > 1) If we want to use the Unicode bidi algorithm then we should first use
| > UCS32 for the text.
|
| This is indeed the plan.
FYI: it is UCS4 (almost equal to UTF32)
--
Lgb
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:43:53PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> It is rather short
That's true but it's also :
1) understood only by one person
2) right in the middle of some complicated code
regards,
john
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 07:47:58PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> I see. Basically I'm wondering if we can remove code that we have to
> maintain in favour of code that the fribidi people have to maintain.
It is rather short, and with external libraries you might have API changes..
>
> > Yes, som
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:39:08PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> 1) If we want to use the Unicode bidi algorithm then we should first use
> UCS32 for the text.
This is indeed the plan.
> 2) The Unicode bidi algorithm uses implicit ordering: the language of the
> text is inferred from the Unicode co
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:02:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused why we seem to have our own (incomplete) support for
> bidi stuff. Is there a good reason we're not using fribidi or equivalent ?
>
> In particular we seem to have fairly hackish support via things like
> auto_numb
I'm a bit confused why we seem to have our own (incomplete) support for
bidi stuff. Is there a good reason we're not using fribidi or equivalent ?
In particular we seem to have fairly hackish support via things like
auto_number instead of properly implementing the unicode bidi algorithm
and suppo
