On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Markus Kuhn wrote: > You might end up with the same conclusion as I did: Bidi is best kept > completely out of the terminal and the vision of bidi ever working as > naturally and simple between terminals and simple Unix tools such as cat > or ls is probabaly a naive illusion.
But if you don't aim for "working flowlessly"? Frankly I'm fairly satisfied with current bidi xterm. Although it's most important feature is that I can easily disable the bidi support when it is getting in my way. Generally it works well for viewing content. > Making bidi simple will make a lot > of other things horribly complicated, and very few developers will > follow. The use of Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac in writing order should > under Unix probabaly be restricted to text editors and word processors. > In file names, urls, environment variables, etc., use either visual > order or the latin script. Really. Visual order? ls |sort File names are essentially texts in many contexts . Also keep in mind that on win32 Hebrew/Arabic filenames are very common. MS-Word defaults to giving the first line of the document as the document name (because it might be the title, and it is just as good a guess as "noname01"). So in this case text becomes file names. So bidirectional file names are already here, whether or not they are a Good Thing [tm]. -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
