Re: Updated: Security in Unicode

[David Starner <starner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:30:18AM +0900, Gaspar Sinai wrote:
> Requiring and freezing algorithms in a standard is even
> more dangerous today's good algorithm is tomorrow's bad
> algorthm.
> 
> I think not having bi-bi alrogithm, 

How could not having a bidi algorithm improve things??? Then you'll just
get multiple algorithms, the most common of which will be the current
one.

> It would make the RL people feel better too - they would
> feel they were asked when the standard was made for them.

I take it they should have sent out people to interview the man on the
street? I sure wasn't asked when my language was being implemented for
computers. They asked people who used and implemented RTL scripts.

As was mentioned on the Unicode list, a reverisable BIDI algorithm is
not feasible with explicit BIDI markers, which some scripts that can be
written both ways need. 

-- 
David Starner - starner@xxxxxxxxxxx, dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber)
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
--
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/