Re: [emacs-bidi] debugging visual-to-logical

[Alex Schroeder]

>> > > So is the UAX#9 logical-to-visual of "MY NUMBER IS: 02-555-3210." is
>> > > really ".02-555-3210 :SI REBMUN YM"?
>> > 
>> > No, its ".3210-555-02 :SI REBMUN YM".
>> 
>> In what implementation of UAX#9 did you see this, and what type did
>> that implementation assign to the upper-case letters and the digits?
>> Especially the AN vs EN and AL vs R is important.
>
> It was the Reference Implementations output, with A-F as AL and G-Z as 
> R, also 0-5 as EN and 6-9 as AN

Personally I don't think it makes much sense to compare things if some
implementations use different tables.  Is there a really good reason
to switch from the bidi types assigned in UnicodeData.txt to the one
the Reference Implementation is using?  If there is, I will change the
tables.  I'd like to see a URL with the new definitions, though, so
that I can trust it's legitimacy.  If there is no really good reason
to use bidi types differing from UnicodeData.txt, however, I think we
should all make it perfectly clear which tables we are using and why
we think it is relevant in our post.  Because if we don't do that, we
will be confusing ourselves to no end.  I was quite confused when I
read this matter-of-fact statement:

>> > No, its ".3210-555-02 :SI REBMUN YM".

Just to make myself clear, my bidi.el uses the bidi types from
UnicodeData.txt whenever I am presenting code or discussing questions.
The only exceptions are the uppercase letters [A-Z] which use type R
instead of L.

Alex.
-- 
http://www.emacswiki.org/