I'd like to add another reason why this behavior is problematic: it breaks
interoperability with other plain text editors, since the text will not be
displayed the same way. Consider, for instance, the very same plain text
file
in GEdit: http://imgur.com/Iw4yrdQ
in Emacs: http://imgur.com/7kfWseE

Finally, the question of whether Emacs behavior is consistent with the UBA
specifications is debatable, since when UBA section 3 states "Paragraphs
may also be determined by higher-level protocols" the question is what
exactly the "also" means: is it that the higher-level protocols (HLP) can
decide that a newline character is not a paragraph boundary, as Emacs does,
or is it that the HLP can only declare paragraph boundaries *in addition
to *paragraph separator characters?

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Itai Berli <itai.berli@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The UBA allows applications to employ "higher-level protocols" when
> > deciding on base paragraph direction.  See section 4.3 in UAX#9 and
> specifically clause HL1 there.
>
> > This is what Emacs does: it applies its own heuristics for this
> > decision.  The reason for that is that Emacs's implementation of the
> > UBA must work reasonably well in plain-text buffers, where typically
> > long paragraphs are broken into lines by newline characters (which are
> > paragraph separators according to the UBA), and many times the
> > partition into lines is done by auto-fill or similar features, thus
> > making the first character of the next line fairly arbitrary.  Using
> > the UBA paragraph-direction determination would then produce
> > unacceptable results, whereby the direction of a part of a paragraph
> > could change in unpredictable ways when text is refilled.
>
>  As I understand it, the "higher-level protocols" provision is intended
>  to allow for such things as table cells, elements of structured markup
>  languages, and word processors that use an idio-syncratic
>  implementation of a paragraph separator *under the hood*. It is not
>  intended for plain running text; for this the standard specifies
>  explicitly what the paragraph separators for every operating system
>  are.
>
> > typically long paragraphs are broken into lines by newline characters
>
> I see no evidence of the validity of this statement on my system (Emacs
> 25.1.1). But even if this were so, it would still not merit
> *hard-coding* the paragraph separator as a blank line, as there are
> situations (such as the one I presented in my bug report) that require
> a diffferent configuration.
>
> > You can alleviate this to some extent by ...(in your case) starting
> > the paragraph with an RLM control character before \noindent,
> > optionally followed by an LRM or enclosing \noindent in LRE..PDF (so
> > that the backslash displays to the left of "noindent").  This is
> > admittedly a bit awkward, but I think the results are still acceptable.
>
> As you mentioned, the solution is cubersome. It might have been
> acceptable if this was the sole issue, but this example illustrates just
> one of
> several problems that arise due to current paragraph separator
> convention.
>
> In conclusion, and on a personal note, I implore you to change this
> behavior, and to do so as soon as possible, and not only for specialized
> markup documents, but for every document.
>
> I am currently working on my thesis. Emacs is useless to me as a text
> editor of Hebrew texts without this feature. This is no
> exaggeration.
>
> The original reason I chose Emacs over other editors was because of
> the combination of AUCTeX and the promise of full Unicode
> compatibility. AUCTeX has delivered on its promise, but in the area of
> Unicode, as far as my needs are concerned it is if there was no Unicode
> support at all, and I will be sadly forced to look for a different editor.
>