On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:40:46 +0200 Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:14:44PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > On Wednesday, 2015-06-24 20:54:54 +0100, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > > > The script is generally implicit in the text. > > > > You want to rely on automatic detection of scripts depending on the > > language chosen? Do you plan to implement that? However, even then > > the resulting tag would include the script code if it wasn't the > > default script of the language. > > Almost every character in Unicode has a script property, the > exceptions is characters that has Inherit (unusually combining marks) > or Common (punctuation mostly), put there is a simple and pretty > reliable way to resolve the script of those characters from the > context. Indeed, the route I had in mind was: 1) Determine script from character(s). 2) Categorise script as Western/CTL/CJK 3) Locale is then the Western locale, the CTL locale or the CJK locale as appropriate. Unless one first categorises the script, one does not know what the language is. Now, with more support, one may need the script. For example, a Serbian date field should depend on the script (Latin v. Cyrillic) as well as just the language, and Serbian is not the only language using competing scripts in the same class. However, what a date field picks up from its environment is curious. If I copy a Thai date field and paste it into the middle of an English word, I get a date in English! Richard. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
