- From: r12a <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 05:51:57 +0100
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "public-i18n-bidi@w3.org" <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>
- Cc: Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@google.com>, "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>, Shervin Afshar <shervinafshar@gmail.com>, Mostafa Hajizadeh <mostafa@daftar.cc>
On 15/09/2016 05:44, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > This is a very high level, speculative comment, but I'll make it anyway: > > You sound as if the isolates are too isolated. My understanding is that > we introduced the isolates because the embeddings were not independent > (isolated) enough and interacted with their surroundings too much. > > Did we overdo (if maybe even just so sligthly) the isolation when we > created isolates? Or would we (at least in theory) need a third kind of > range, somewhere in between isolates and embeddings in independency? i don't think the level of isolation is the problem, i think it's more to do with an isolated range being treated as a neutral character (whereas a non-isolated embedded range (eg. RLE) is treated as a strong character). ri
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 04:52:10 UTC