On 15 April 2015 at 21:19, Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Khaled Hosny wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:52:38PM +0100, Philip Taylor wrote: > >>> Might it not be possible to resolve this by making the new behaviour >>> optional, using a new primitive for the purpose ? >> >> So this just penalizes the unlucky people who need to enable the special >> behaviour, I’d rather penalize everyone and have a consistent, if >> erratic in someways, behaviour. > > I do not understand. If system A performed function Y until now, yet > its designer/maintainer wishes it to perform function Y' henceforth, how > can those who wish to exploit Y' be /penalised/ by being asked to invoke > the operation specifically, rather than have it just happen and destroy > backwards compatibility ? I see no "penalty" at all, just allowing the > informed user to make an explicit choice between the two behaviours. > > Philip Taylor > > >
Phil, it's hard to argue that working right-to-left text should be an opt-in (or even opt-out) feature of xetex. I may wish for an ideal world in which this could be fixed another way, but I don't think an option would help at all. David -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex