From unicode-bounce@unicode.org Wed Feb 6 09:12:34 2002 Received: by suse.blue-edge-tech.com id g160CYI18960; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:12:34 +0900 Delivered-To: yuditorg-gsinai@yudit.org Received: from mail.yudit.org [206.245.164.55] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.6) for gsinai@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:12:34 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 26986 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2002 10:49:55 -0000 Received: from unicode.org (209.235.17.55) by mailserv2.iuinc.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 10:49:55 -0000 Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA02827; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:35:25 -0500 Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list unicode); Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay03.esat.net (relay03.esat.net [192.111.39.46]) by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA02821 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:35:24 -0500 Received: from dialup40.ts101.bmt.esat.net ([193.120.28.150]) [193.120.28.40] by relay03.esat.net with esmtp id 16Y2J0-0000uX-00; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 09:54:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ever001@pop.officelink.esat.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:36:35 +0000 To: unicode@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: Re: Unicode and Security Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 1428 X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0 Sender: unicode-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: unicode-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Listar version 1.0.0 X-List-ID: X-list: unicode Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: At 13:27 +0900 2002-02-05, Gaspar Sinai wrote: >Just because some companies who have influence on Unicode >Consortium use some algorithm, like backing store and re-mapping, >it does not mean that this is the only way. And I don't even >think they do in cases when character conversion is necessary. Backing store and remapping are fundamental principles of Unicode. They are implemented by people who want to implement the Unicode standard. >For me it is very imprtant what a naive user sees on the screen. For me, too. >Yudit does convert the input to view order and back. Text >direction and end of line is clearly indicated. [...] > >If the standard wants me to confuse the user, I would rather dump the >standard than comply. I haven't been able to follow how I, the user, am confused by the Unicode Standard. It sounds to me as though you want a "Show Invisibles" option to disassemble Hebrew or Arabic text and display them in LTR order without any ligation so that the user can see what is in the backing store. That's a valid thing to want to do, but it's a special case of rendering, which has little to do with the algorithm. >I wish there was another world character standard besides >Unicode and not only half-hearted attempts like bytext. >Talking about characters: I think bi-di should not be in >Unicode Standard because it is not a character. >It is an algorithm. Yes, it is. The Unicode Standard does not just encode characters. It also provides tools for implementation. >I feel sorry for interrupting in the "Let's praise and >celebrate Unicode" mood of this mailing list. We like Unicode. We work to make it better. Sometimes people come to us with problems that aren't problems, or raise issues that have been dealt with many times before. Sometimes people bring us real problems that need real solutions. We're an intelligent bunch, methinks, and we can tell the difference. Unicode may have warts, but it's a lot better than ISO 2022. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com