On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, John Cowan wrote: > Gaspar Sinai scripsit: > > > The following page contains my view of Unicode > > BIDI algorithm (with screenshots). > > > > http://www.yudit.org/security/ > > Oooo-kay. This is not a Unicode problem per se: it is about > embedded text vs. text that is not embedded. The Yudit and > IE versions are displaying a text (Java code) that is essentially in > Latin script (LTR) with some RTL inclusions. However, when > the Java application actually runs, it displays three > separate and distinct texts, each of which is an RTL text > with some LTR inclusions. They are assumed to be RTL > text, by the bidi rules, because they begin with a strong > RTL character. > > Similar things happen when you construct XML documents > with RTL element names: the bidi rules, which are meant > for true text and not computer-readable stuff, sometimes > produce visually confusing results.
So it is perfectly ok? I can make a non-ebedded example too. I do not have time to make childish examples and screenshots to get through my point. I have a job to do and text processing is just my hobby. The rendering problems are all side effects of the unicode bi-di algorithm. If unicode bidi algorithm would be proven to be reversable (logical->display ; display->logical) I would not go to bed worrying about my signed documents. Thats my view of the problem. Cheers gaspar
