from 4 to null (was: 3 big bidi bugs)

Mark Davis wrote: One could wish for a simpler algorithm (for that matter, one could wish that people had uniform writing directions, or that Brits would drive on the right side of the road). As to ByText, you are on your own (in many ways). ByText? What’s that? One could wish for a simpler

RE: 3 big bidi bugs

Mark Davis wrote: [L2] is not the following: ... I'm glad to hear that bug 1 is not how L2 is intended to work (this means that the answer to FAQ question 12 Is Bytext bidirectionality compatible with Unicode bidirectionality? is simply yes, instead of a qualified yes). I don't wish to give the

3 big bidi bugs

This letter describes 3 major technical problems with the current Unicode bidirectional algorithm as described in UAX #9, version 3.20. Problems 1 and 3 have security implications. Other problems with the whole Unicode bidirectional encoding approach, and their solutions, are discussed in the

Bytext FAQ, Security

Hello, I’ve published a FAQ that should answer most of the questions asked about Bytext on this list, please start at the homepage: www.bytext.org. Some security issues and solutions are covered in the FAQ, which seems to be a hot topic as of late. Instead of proclaiming “Unicode is not to

POSITIVELY MUST READ! Bytext is here!

this list and reading various things you’ve written you all seem very friendly and intelligent. I look forward to future conversations between us. Sincerely, Bernard Miller __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http

RE: Handling irregular sequences

The question raised earlier by David Hollingsworth did not seem to get any responses from this list. I've pasted the text of the email below. I would also like clarification on why the utf-8 in unicode 3.1 only forbids conformant implementations from interpreting nonshortest forms for BMP

Numbers

Hello, Do any characters, such as U+2792, have negative numerical values as a Unicode property? I don't suppose there is anything weirder than negative numbers, such as irrational, imaginary, or supernatural values? According to Unibook 3.0 only a few of the dingbat numbers have a numerical

Re: plane business

--- Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are 66 non-characters as of Unicode 3.1, there were 34 non-characters before. There are no hidden non-characters, but there were 'hidden' planes in Unicode 3.0 - hidden in the limited sense that they were defined as character and

plane business

Hi folks, I appreciate the answers to my 6 questions, some of which came directly from the authors. I think that’s neat. I’m afraid I have a little bit of a beef about the Unicode documentation here, forgive me if this has already been brought up. How come UAX #27 says that Unicode 3.0 had 34