- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:34:56 +0900
- To: w3c-translators@w3.org
Martin, thanks for your follow-up. "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org> wrote: > > I still have two questions. > > > > (1) Are there many language that can be encoded by "-e" encoding or > > only Hebrew and Arabic have "-e" (and "-i") encoding ? > > There are many languages that use the Hebrew or Arabic script and > therefore need Bidi support. There are also some more scripts (mostly > historic) that are written right-to-left. In practice, only Hebrew > email uses both visual and implicit ordering. RFC 1556 was written > by somebody mostly familliar with Hebrew, but not so much with > Arabic. While Hebrew and Arabic have more or less the same problems > for Bidi, Arabic needs more work for character->glyph processing. > In actual practice and early implementations, Hebrew therefore mostly > was based on simple ASCII software, with some keyboard hacking and > a different font. This resulted in using visual ordering in the > data. On the other hand, for Arabic, a more sophisticated renderer > was needed anyway, so in most cases, Bidi was also built in. Therefore, > visual ordering is not much used for Arabic, while it was and still > is in use for Hebrew. In contrary to what RFC 1556 says, the "-e" and > "-i" was only used for Hebrew, but never took on for Arabic. This is > mentionned in the HTML 4.0 spec. As for the distinction between "-i" > and "-e", please see my previous mail. As far as I know, there are > some standards that allow explicit reordering combined with 8859-8, > but they never really came into much use, and are not relevant in > connection with HTML 4.0. And just FYI: in the list of registered charset values[1], "ISO_8859-6-E" and "ISO_8859-8-E" are only encodings which use explicit directionality ("EBCDIC-JP-E" is not for bi-directional data, I believe ;-). > > (2) Now my understanding about section 8.2.4 with your help: > > Section 8.2.4 says "we can use NO '-e' encodings to express > > explicit directional control, because HTML uses the Unicode > > 'inolicit' bidirectionality algorithm only". > > Is it right? > > No, this is not right, as explained in my previous mail. Yes, sorry for confusion. > > > P.S. If you have some difficulty in translating into Japanese, maybe > > > I can help you. > > > > By the way, could I write to you in both English and Japanese (by > > ISO-2022-JP) ? > > No problem for me of Ishikawa-san. But maybe it is better not to send too > many ISO-2022-JP mails to the translators list. And for me, ISO-2022-JP-2 is also acceptable, if you need. [1] <URL:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/character-sets> Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 1998 02:35:15 UTC