From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Cloos Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bidi,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Re: improving bidi documents display Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:58:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <837hcpryxr.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrklpzii.fsf@maru.md5i.com> <83aahhnpr3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299087113 10847 80.91.229.12 (2 Mar 2011 17:31:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eli.osherovich@gmail.com, Michael Welsh Duggan , emacs-bidi@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 02 18:31:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Puptq-0007E5-Qv for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:31:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35688 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Puptq-0005gX-5g for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:31:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54308 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Puptm-0005fF-7L for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Puptl-0000zZ-9u for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:31:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eagle.jhcloos.com ([207.210.242.212]:52681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Puptj-0000zK-J5; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:31:39 -0500 Original-Received: by eagle.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 98F6E402BB; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:31:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=eagle; t=1299087097; bh=f5gJWY6WIAdbHMfSQULArGrY7eQKCDer7d6oBGkBYPk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=p7xoUkFpn46CoegoTLNNP3ipcfk8f+fLLZZHsj5NYUfMo8PIBNynnQvLaWll+1/YW IFWW+Xi4AUqhrm37LTAMsBmOeyMSo85R7H+own2iScPWyn7Cgzf1LjGpNZQra5w1TL GKSg7I+aa48tvy2ciA2ewJKxeseU6uJadY00/xCw= Original-Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A90B5260042; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 00:58:44 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <83aahhnpr3.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:15:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110014 (No Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC Copyright: Copyright 2011 James Cloos OpenPGP: ED7DAEA6; url=http://jhcloos.com/public_key/0xED7DAEA6.asc OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6 Original-Lines: 28 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 207.210.242.212 X-BeenThere: emacs-bidi@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of Emacs support for multi-directional text." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bidi:854 gmane.emacs.devel:136719 Archived-At: >>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii writes: EZ> The key to a useful discussion of these matters is to decide up EZ> front what do we want to support and what do we want the text to EZ> look like. EZ> In this case, someone who knows about (La)TeX much more than I do EZ> should first describe what TeX features would be useful when EZ> typesetting bidirectional text. Given that: the UAX is specific to plain text emacs' modes uses faces to differentiate syntactically different text runs the latter is essentially the same as (invisible) markup then one could conclude that bidi runs always should be intra-face and never inter-face, yes? How well does >>back to default on face changes<< translate to the level where emacs' bidi works? -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6