Re: poor man R2L support

>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: > Uwe Brauer writes: >> Yes and no. Because if you do this with your function you get visual >> hebrew. > The naming scheme of "visual" vs "logical" R2L still confuses me 15.5 > years after M17N-1998. As I understand it, logical R2L you write as L2R but it is displayed as if it were R2L, while visual L2R you write L2R. The confusion was caused by the input method kile chooses (and for the record, lyx does something similar), sorry for any confusion. >> Kile has a similar input to your function but results in (when I >> open the file say with less >> >> _shalom > Is that what you see in Kile? If not (if you see the text in proper > R2L form), Kile probably just uses pango or similar to display (this > is what Aidan was talking about with getting R2L almost for free with > pango, but I don't think it works that way in Emacsen). Yes I see R2L. I just sent a message to the kile team asking for details of their R2L implementation. > Yeah, unfortunately since you want the file in logical order, you want > the buffer that way too. So input is trivial but display is really > hard if you want proper bidi. I think the proper thing to do is to > port Eliz's implementation of UAX #9 from GNU Emacs. Yes, which most likely is quite a bit complicated.... :'( Uwe _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta