From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bidi,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Re: Handling invisible text in bidirectional display Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:51:42 +0200 Message-ID: <831vho8nfl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y6jyat25.fsf@gnu.org> <87eilpzwrs.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <83vdf1bxbg.fsf@gnu.org> <833a248r8i.fsf@gnu.org> <873a24zdsw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1263761523 30657 80.91.229.12 (17 Jan 2010 20:52:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-bidi@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 17 21:51:56 2010 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 4.50) id 1NWc6F-0002Xe-Bf for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:51:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52659 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NWc6G-0008W8-1z for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NWc6D-0008UT-Nd for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:53 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NWc69-0008OW-0T for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:53 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52866 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NWc68-0008OG-QJ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:46752) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NWc66-0006ld-JI; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:46 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KWE00900SFLXH00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:51:42 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.81.4]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KWE009WFSM5W400@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:51:42 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <873a24zdsw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:450 gmane.emacs.devel:120176 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:17:35 +0100 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 3*(54)DCBA > > > > which I think is less surprising. > > I disagree, because there is no reason for 5 and 4 to switch their order > anymore. Well, then we'll have to disagree. > There also is a difference between invisibility and display properties > here: if there is a display property on a letter "x", it is hard to see > why several consecutive images should be reordered to be L->R. Of > course, one should argue that in the presence of L->R, people should > take care to use the right "shadowed" character to match the intended > left/rightness of the image. But I think that is not really sane. If > we want display property material to have an explicit direction, it > should be set with properties, not by some magic derivation from the > underlying invisible text. I don't understand the use-case, and without it this reads like a charade (what "x"? which "shadowed" characters? what images?). Please show a complete example, then I'll be able to reason about it.