On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 at 16:00, Nitai Sasson via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is getting off-topic, but what could be the source of this difference? I > see these possibilities: > > - Both implementations have (different) bugs and don't implement the Unicode > spec correctly. > - Unicode specs are vague, and leave room for interpretation in this case > - Unicode has precise specs about this, one of the implementations is > accurate, and the Unicode spec did not properly account for this case > - This just isn't supposed to work if the font doesn't explicitly support > bidi (I hope this is not the case) > >> I just realized that this might be outside the scope of Unicode entirely. I admit I'm a bit out of my depth. This is off-topic anyway.
