Old unicode standard

David.Goodenough at DGA.co.uk David.Goodenough at DGA.co.uk
Sat Jun 15 10:51:12 CDT 2002

Well volume 1 of the 1.0 version has an entire appendix, 11 pages in all.
Volume 2 of 1.0 does not seem to have anything on directionality (as 1.0
names it).  2.0 has 10 pages at the end of chapter 3 on Bi-Directional
behavior.  Typing all this lot up could take a while, and our scanner is
broken at the moment (its my wife's, and I must encourage her to go get it
fixed as its warrantee will run out soon if she does not get a move on).


                    Shachar Shemesh                                                                                   
                    <wine-devel at sun.consum        To:     andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de, David.Goodenough at dga.co.uk    
                    er.org.il>                    cc:     Wine Devel <wine-devel at winehq.com>                          
                                                  Subject:     Re: Old unicode standard                               
                    06/15/02 10:35 AM                                                                                 

  Andreas Mohr wrote:

>Hmm, which approximate time frame is this ?
>1998 ? 94 ? 89 ? :-)
I'm talking about the 1991-2 time frame. I believe this makes it
~Unicode 1.0. A later version could come in handy as well. See later on.

David.Goodenough at dga.co.uk wrote:

>I have the version 1.0 and 2.0 books, what exactly do you want to know?
>wha?t form would you like the information
I am interested in the BiDi algorythm as defined by these standards. Any
format that you can send me is fine. If you would just like to summarize
the algorythm, that would be great, but I'm afraid that would amount to
huge amounts of work. LIke I said - I would have used the online
library, only it doesn't go back that much.

It seems from the information MS released in the MSDN that they are
using Version 1.0 of the BiDi algorythm. This goes a great way in
understanding why their reordering is so crummy. That leaves us the
question of what do we do now.

MS defines only 12 BiDi types. These are not enough to implement the 3.0
BiDi algorythm. I don't know whether the types defined are compatible
with the 2.0 algorythm. There is also the question of whether we want to
support MS's bugs, in addition to their features.

What version I need depends on what's in the 2.0 standard. If the
algorythm there depends on the same 12 types MS defined, I'm leaning
torwards implementing that. If it requires further types (as the 3.0
algorythm does), I think I'll go with the 1.0 standard. We may add a
special command line feature, available only if a library such as
freebidi is available, that will send the strings to an outside library
for reordering, which will give us 3.0 support for very little extra
work (with performance penalties).


More information about the wine-devel mailing list