W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-bidi@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: per-paragraph auto-direction, a.k.a. dir=uba

From: Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:18:43 +0200
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>, Amit Aronovitch <aronovitch@gmail.com>, CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, public-i18n-bidi-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1079BFD2.B60F90E0-ONC22577AB.0064256C-C22577AB.0064A2FB@il.ibm.com>
+1

Going further than fantasai, I would say that trying to be smarter than 
the UBA is *NOT* a good idea.  We all know that the UBA first-strong 
algorithm is not perfect, and that its main merit is simplicity. However 
smarter we can design a variant thereof, it will still be less than 
perfect, while loosing the benefit of simplicity.

Shalom (Regards),  Mati
           Bidi Architect
           Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts
           IBM Israel
           Phone: +972 2 5888802    Fax: +972 2 5870333    Mobile: +972 52 
2554160




From:   fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
To:     "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>
Cc:     Amit Aronovitch <aronovitch@gmail.com>, CE Whitehead 
<cewcathar@hotmail.com>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
Date:   27/09/2010 12:33
Subject:        Re: per-paragraph auto-direction, a.k.a. dir=uba
Sent by:        public-i18n-bidi-request@w3.org



I think first-strong should match the UBA. Otherwise we need two
first-strongs: one to be compatible with the UBA, and one that's
"smarter" than UBA. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 18:20:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 September 2010 18:20:27 GMT