RE: Proposal for isolation characters in Unicode and the unicode-bidi:isolate and unicode-bidi:plaintext definitions

I am in favor of Aharon Lanin's proposal for 3 new characters: LRI, RLI and FSI, with Martin Duerst's addition of a fourth character to terminate the scope of the last unclosed RI, RLI or FSI.

 

I also agree that the HTML/CSS behavior for the BDI element should be as similar as possible to the behavior of those 4 characters in plain text.

 

If Unicode cannot accommodate the behavior of these new characters under the umbrella of the current UBA, so that they can only be accepted within a new version UBA-2, then let it be. I don't think that for implementers it makes a difference whether the necessary changes to UBA implementation are called support of new characters or support of a new version.

 

>From my familiarity with the UBA implementation in ICU, I think that the changes needed to support the new characters should be relatively modest (in the order of 2 person-weeks).

 

Shalom (Regards),  Mati