- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:52:08 -0700
- To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>, www-html@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/23/2010 04:16 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote: > The ceiling on embeddings in the bidi algorithm was invented in an > attempt to prevent implementations from taking shortcuts and setting > their own ceiling. 60 some levels was thought to be small enough that > any implementation could handle it, and yet inconceivably large for > practical cases. However, the limit is on bidi levels, not on the number > of embeddings. It occurs to me that in some contexts, levels could > increment by 2. Might be worth someone checking in the bidi > specification under what circumstances that occurs, and whether that > means the worst case nesting limit is lower. UAX9 applies that limit only to explicit embedding levels. http://unicode.org/reports/tr9/#BD2 http://unicode.org/reports/tr9/#X1 As you say, implicit levels can increase the base number by two. Capping the explicit levels at 61 leaves just enough room in a 6-bit integer space to handle implicit codes. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 23:52:54 UTC