I would say the problem lies in the attempt to exchange arbitrary
raw data and expect perfectly compatible rendering. In the absence of very explicit markup there's simply no expectation that all users see precisely the same thing. Editors for plain text will wrap or not wrap lines on presentation, for example, and if they do, the wrapping may depend on the width of the window. The bidi case is just another such case where you cannot expect any fidelity in presentation whatsoever. (And certainly not in the case of degenerate files containing all but one weak character). A./ |
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of highe... Richard Wordingham via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of h... Eli Zaretskii via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability ... Shai Berger via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicabi... Eli Zaretskii via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Shai Berger via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Ken Whistler via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Shai Berger via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicabi... Richard Wordingham via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Richard Wordingham via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Shai Berger via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Richard Wordingham via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: appli... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level p... philip chastney via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-le... Ken Whistler via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-le... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-le... Richard Wordingham via Unicode