- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:01:15 +0900
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- CC: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@amazon.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
[comments below] On 2010/03/27 18:49, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Thanks Felix, I will update the schema. However, the BIDI spec warns, > for security reasons, to avoid the overrides so I didn't include them > into our spec. Should I put lro and rlo into the spec regardless? the > spec now contains a note about this in the dir section: > > Note: > Under the guidance of the [BIDI] specification, the values that would > allow directional overrides in this specifications, namely Left-to-Right > Override (LRO) and Right-to-Left Override (RLO), have deliberately been > left out of this specification because of security concerns (see > [UTR36]). Authors wanting to override the [BIDI] algorithm can do so by > using [XML] entities and the appropriate Unicode directional markers. Reading this note, it seems to make NO sense whatever for me to leave out the lro/rlo values. Essentially, the Note tells you that there is a security problem that apparently was addressed, and then it goes on to tell you how to circumvent the solution. Or did I get something wrong? Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 08:02:15 UTC