From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Word boundary (was: find-composition still depends on the composition property) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:03:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87tzbh7kd9.fsf@jurta.org> <87tzb5ikrw.fsf@jurta.org> <87mygusydi.fsf_-_@jurta.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224957820 32157 80.91.229.12 (25 Oct 2008 18:03:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:03:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 25 20:04:40 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KtnV6-0007P7-Cs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:04:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58082 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KtnU0-00089m-KG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:03:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtnTw-000899-MV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtnTv-00088x-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35998 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KtnTv-00088u-Mz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il ([84.95.2.10]:26066) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KtnTv-0008O5-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.171.110]) by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9B00CYQ3JXBBH0@i_mtaout4.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:04:46 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87mygusydi.fsf_-_@jurta.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:104998 Archived-At: > From: Juri Linkov > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:48:44 +0300 > > Do you know how many scripts require word boundaries between > letters and digits? Does the Unicode standard specify this? Unless I'm missing something important, my reading of th UAX #29 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-13.html) is that almost all scripts should _not_ have word breaks between letters and digits. And neither should we define a word break on script boundaries, in most cases. So it sounds like our default behavior is simply wrong.