Re: [emacs-bidi] Embedding levels of formatting codes

[Omer Zak]

My opinion:

It does not really matter what embedding levels are assigned to the
formatting codes, as long as two formatting codes straddling text are not
adjacent to each other when they are displayed.

As long as this principle is fulfilled, all the rest is nitpicking, and
choose whichever approach which simplifies the algorithm and explain the
algorithm in user documentation.

                                             --- Omer
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
> Not a matter of great importance, but...
>
> UTR#9 doesn't say much about embedding levels that should be assigned
> to the formatting codes (LRE, LRO, RLE, RLO, and PDF).The mainline
> algorithm simply removes them after computing the embedding levels and
> the override direction of each level run:
>
> X9. Remove all RLE, LRE, RLO, LRO, PDF, and BN codes.
>
>    Note that an implementation does not have to actually remove the codes, it 
> just has to behave as
>    though the codes were not present for the remainder of the algorithm. 
> Conformance does not
>    require any particular placement of these codes as long as all other 
> characters are ordered
>    correctly.
>    See 'Implementation Notes' later in this section for information on 
> implementing the algorithm
>    without removing the formatting codes.
>
> X10. The remaining rules are applied to each run of characters at the
> same level. For each run, determine the start-of-level-run
> (sor) and end-of-level-run (eor) type, either L or R. This depends on the
> higher of the two levels on either side of the boundary (at
> the start or end of the paragraph, the level of the 'other' run is the
> base embedding level). If the higher level is odd, the type is R,
> otherwise it is L.
>
> Clearly, if the codes are removed, it doesn't matter much what levels
> are assigned to them.However, the current design for Emacs is to
> leave the codes in the buffer, so it does matter for us (I give below
> an example of a situation when it matters).
>
> In the short and not very clearly written section of UTR#9 where it
> gives recommendations for when the codes are not removed, it says
> this:
>
> * In rule X9, instead of removing the format codes, assign the embedding
>   level to each embedding character, and turn it into BN.
> * In rule X10, assign L or R to the last of a sequence of adjacent BNs
>   according to the eor / sor, and set the level to the higher of the
>   two levels.
>
> Now, what in the world do they mean by that??Does anyone have a clue
> and can explain this in small words?
>
> Why does it matter?For example, consider the buffer whose contents
> is this:
>
> here is a small {RLO}TEst{PDF}
>
> which should be displayed as
>
> here is a small tsET
>
> If the user asks to see theformatting codes, do we want them to be
> displayed like this:
>
> here is a small {RLO}tsET{PDF}
>
> or like this:
>
> here is a small {PDF}tsET{RLO}
>
> ?
>
> My current design would produce the second variant, because both RLO
> and PDF are assigned the same embedding level as the characters they
> embed.That is, the formatting codes are treated as if they were part
> of the embedded text.Is that okay?
>
> Note that a slightly more complex example, like this:
>
> a {LRE}simple {RLO}teST{PDF} which{PDF} see
>
> will be displayed with the formatting codes like this:
>
> a {LRE}simple {PDF}TSet{RLO} which{PDF} see
>
> Does that look good enough?
>
> _______________________________________________
> emacs-bidi mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-bidi
>