- From: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:49:25 +0300
- To: r12a <ishida@w3.org>, 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 15/09/16 07:51, r12a wrote: > 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 > That sounds to me like the same issue: as soon as an embedded sequence is treated as a strong character, it stops being isolated: for example it can affect the resolved level of an adjacent numeral. IIUARC this was one of the chief reasons, if not THE reason, for treating isolated sequences as neutral characters in their containers
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 09:50:00 UTC