The email was sent from Gmail on its webmail, French edition.
May be Gmail is causing this, this is not expected and I don't know why
Gmail transforms the text to ISO 8859-1 (without breaking the text without
notice, it could had used windows-1252, which has completely superseded ISO
8859-1 along
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:19:57 -0700
Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On this side show, Philippe finally is correct, because I received
his message without ASCII-i-fication; he cc'd me directly, and I
never saw the mangled text. It's a bit embarassing for a Unicode mail
list to not
This has seen off-line discussion with the mail manager and we're good.
A./
On 5/1/2014 3:44 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:19:57 -0700
Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On this side show, Philippe finally is correct, because I received
his message without
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:15:44PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/23/2014 4:41 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
GREED) Given any close-delimiter marked as “non-matching”, its
pre-context does not contain any open-delimiter which could
match it.
Here pre-context
On 4/23/2014 7:37 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Thanks for the clear reply, now I know that my example in a prior
message would work appropriately with UBA:
This is an [«] ARABIC EXAMPLE [»] for demonstration only.
Because:
- the opening guillemet is not stripped out of the context stack when
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:28:50 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: k...@unicode.org, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org,
James Clark j...@jclark.com,
unicode Unicode Discussion unicode@unicode.org
On 4/23/2014 7:37 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Thanks for the clear reply, now I
2014-04-24 16:39 GMT+02:00 Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org:
In addition, assuming that by guillemets Philippe means U+00AB and
U+00BB,
guillemet is THE correct name, even in English. guillemot comes from an
old typo error. If you don't want this term in Engmish you can still use
double angle
From: Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:11:23 +0200
Cc: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com, Ilya Zakharevich
nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org, k...@unicode.org,
James Clark j...@jclark.com, unicode Unicode Discussion
unicode@unicode.org
In addition, assuming that
On 4/24/2014 8:20 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
So nothing (at least not the reason of the GC which is just an intermediate
but incomplete helper) forbids the guillemets to be listed in
BidiBrackets.txt.
They don't satisfy the conditions for that. From BidiBrackets.txt:
Philippe is incorrect once
On 4/24/2014 7:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
This is _*incorrect*_, see the text in blue/bold in the definition
copied below.
The second bullet in item 3 of the second second-level bullet of the
third top-level bullet of BD16 clearly says that all elements that are
above the matched element are
2014-04-24 17:20 GMT+02:00 Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org:
From: Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:11:23 +0200
Cc: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com, Ilya Zakharevich
nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org, k...@unicode.org,
James Clark j...@jclark.com, unicode Unicode
Re: Unclear text in the UBA (UAX#9) of Unicode 6.3
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
[...] And at least your original message
used and transliterations, not the actual characters.
No I used the «» characters exacvtly like here.
I absolutely never use the ASCII
on tracking this side issue.
A./
On 4/24/2014 12:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Re: Unclear text in the UBA (UAX#9) of Unicode 6.3
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
[...] And at least your original message
used and transliterations, not the actual characters.
No I used
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:06:27AM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
if you read UAX#9, the way the algorithm works is by pushing openers
on a stack, then, on finding the first closer, going down the stack
and attempting to locate a match, then, on finding a match,
discarding any enclosed openers,
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:17:44 -0700
From: Ilya Zakharevich nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org
Cc: asm...@ix.netcom.com, verd...@wanadoo.fr, k...@unicode.org,
unicode@unicode.org, j...@jclark.com
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Sorry, I do not see any definition
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:35:02 -0700
From: Ilya Zakharevich nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org
Cc: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, k...@unicode.org, unicode Unicode Discussion
unicode@unicode.org, James Clark j...@jclark.com
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:06:27AM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
if you read
On 4/23/2014 12:35 AM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:06:27AM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
if you read UAX#9, the way the algorithm works is by pushing openers
on a stack, then, on finding the first closer, going down the stack
and attempting to locate a match, then, on
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:21:04AM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
a parsing is good if it satisfies all conditions below:
0) Some delimiters in the string are marked as “non-matching”; the rest
is broken into disjoint “matched” pairs;
MATCH) A “matched” pair consists of an
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:25:53PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
I see nothing in your definition that is significantly different from
our attempts. It does feel more complex, mainly because you have much
more conditions, combining which in one's mind might not be easy at
first reading.
On 4/23/2014 4:41 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:21:04AM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
a parsing is good if it satisfies all conditions below:
0) Some delimiters in the string are marked as “non-matching”; the rest
is broken into disjoint “matched” pairs;
Thanks for the clear reply, now I know that my example in a prior message
would work appropriately with UBA:
This is an [«] ARABIC EXAMPLE [»] for demonstration only.
Because:
- the opening guillemet is not stripped out of the context stack when the
first closing bracket is matched with the
On 4/21/2014 8:32 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Here's the text I supplied, with numbers added for discussion. It
definitely needs some
editing, but the point of the exercise would be to see what:
1. A bracket pair is a pair of
We try not to do that. There are some known holes, like RBNF. if you know
of others please file a ticket.
{phone}
On Apr 21, 2014 9:18 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
From: Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
In general, I heartily dislike specifications that just
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:25:05PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/21/2014 8:32 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Here's the text I supplied, with numbers added for discussion. It
definitely needs some
editing, but the point of the
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:25:05 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
Cc: verd...@wanadoo.fr, k...@unicode.org, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org,
James Clark j...@jclark.com,
unicode Unicode Discussion unicode@unicode.org
And I think I can even invent an example which I
On 4/22/2014 2:19 AM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
I think the crucial problem is with
1( 2[ 3( 4] 5) 5b] 6)
I have two possible interpretations: one matches 2 with 5b, another
leaves 2 unmatched.
Ilya,
if you read UAX#9, the way the algorithm works is by pushing openers on
a stack,
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:32:15 -0700
From: Ilya Zakharevich nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org
Cc: verd...@wanadoo.fr, k...@unicode.org, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org,
unicode Unicode Discussion unicode@unicode.org, James Clark
j...@jclark.com
Sorry, I do not see any definition here. Just a
On 4/22/2014 9:02 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
an resolve it, so we match 1) and 6).
But that's wrong, isn't it?
Yes, brain fart.
I agree, but let me try to say the same more concisely:
A bracket pair is a pair of an opening paired bracket and a closing
paired bracket characters
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:06:27 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, k...@unicode.org,
unicode Unicode Discussion unicode@unicode.org,
James Clark j...@jclark.com
I believe that your scheme does not match the PBA in that it assumes
that
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:52:43 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org, verd...@wanadoo.fr, k...@unicode.org,
j...@jclark.com, unicode@unicode.org
I agree, but let me try to say the same more concisely:
A bracket pair is a pair of an opening
On 4/22/2014 10:11 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:52:43 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org, verd...@wanadoo.fr, k...@unicode.org,
j...@jclark.com, unicode@unicode.org
I agree, but let me try to say the same more concisely:
A
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Sorry, I do not see any definition here. Just a collection of words
which looks like a definition, but only locally…
Any definition is just a collection of words, of course. Can you tell
what is missing from this collection
On 4/22/2014 2:17 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Sorry, I do not see any definition here. Just a collection of words
which looks like a definition, but only locally…
Any definition is just a collection of words, of course. Can you
On 4/20/2014 6:54 PM, James Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On 4/20/2014 3:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
obscure language in the UBA
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:58:23 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
On 4/20/2014 3:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
obscure language in the UBA document found at
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/? Thanks in
From: James Clark j...@jclark.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:54:34 +0700
Cc: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, unicode@unicode.org, Kenneth Whistler
k...@unicode.org
X6. For all types besides B, BN, RLE, LRE, RLO, LRO, PDF, RLI, LRI,
FSI, and PDI:
. Set the current
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 23:03:20 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, unicode@unicode.org,
Kenneth Whistler k...@unicode.org
Note that the current embedding level is not changed by this rule.
What does this last sentence mean by
On 4/21/2014 1:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 23:03:20 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
CC: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, unicode@unicode.org,
Kenneth Whistler k...@unicode.org
Note that the current embedding level is not changed by this rule.
On 4/21/2014 12:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
in some places, I concur with you that the wording could be improved
and that such improved wording should be proposed to the UTC (or its
editorial committee) for incorporation into a future update.
How do we do that?
You file a problem report using
There are some cases where these rules will not be clear enough. Look at
the following where overlaps do occur; but directionality still matters:
This is an [] example [] for demonstration only.
There are two parsings possible if you just consider a hierarchic layout
where overlaps are disabled:
Philippe,
I fail to understand how your post contributes to the topic.
The issue was unclear wording of the specification, not deficiencies in
the UBA or the PBA in general.
Let's keep this discussion limited to issues of wording for the
*existing* specification. Feel free to start a new
From: Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
In general, I heartily dislike specifications that just narrate a
particular implementation...
I agree completely. I see this with CLDR as well; there is a more or
less implicit assumption that I will be using ICU to implement whatever
It is on topic because the proposed description attempts to explain how
paired brackets should match and how this witll then affect the rendering
in bidirectional contexts. This is exactly the kind of things that are
difficult because the proposed description assumes that paired brackets are
On 4/21/2014 11:23 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
It is on topic because the proposed description attempts to explain
how paired brackets should match and how this witll then affect the
rendering in bidirectional contexts. This is exactly the kind of
things that are difficult because the proposed
On 4/21/2014 11:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
From: Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
In general, I heartily dislike specifications that just narrate a
particular implementation...
I agree completely. I see this with CLDR as well; there is a more or
less implicit assumption that
My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have not even
claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages of paired brackets
that do not obey to a pure hierarchy (because these notations use different
type of brackets, they are not ambiguous) but still preserve their left
On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have not
even claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages of
paired brackets that do not obey to a pure hierarchy (because these
notations use different type of brackets, they
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:44:14PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have
not even claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages
of paired brackets that do not obey to a pure hierarchy
Ilya noted:
[Below, I completely ignore BIDI part of the specification, and
concentrate ONLY on the parens match. I do not understand why this
question is interlaced with BIDI determination; I trust that it is.]
Actually, it is, because the bracket-matching is really only
Ilya,
I appreciate your taking the time to take apart Philippe's message. That
aspect of it was not obvious to me.
A./
PS: more comments below
On 4/21/2014 4:41 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:44:14PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy
On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, Whistler, Ken wrote:
So one may ask: what will be the result of the CURRENT UNICODE parsing
applied
to Phillipe’s example?
This is an [«] example [»] for demonstration only.
That is easily answered. Let's crank up the bidi reference code with
a shorter example
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Here's the text I supplied, with numbers added for discussion. It
definitely needs some
editing, but the point of the exercise would be to see what:
1. A bracket pair is a pair of characters consisting of an opening
Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
obscure language in the UBA document found at
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/? Thanks in advance.
1. In paragraph 3.1.2, near its very end, we have this sentence (with
my emphasis):
As rule X10 will specify, an isolating
On 4/20/2014 3:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
obscure language in the UBA document found at
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/? Thanks in advance.
Eli,
I've tried to give you some explanations - in some places, I concur with
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On 4/20/2014 3:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
obscure language in the UBA document found
athttp://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/? Thanks in advance.
55 matches
Mail list logo
