16 Jun 00:53
Re: Bidi - will it happen ?
Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir <at> technion.ac.il>
2002-06-15 22:53:28 GMT
2002-06-15 22:53:28 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Tim Freedom wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:39:23 +0300 (IDT), > Eli Zaretskii eliz <at> is.elta.co.il wrote: > > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Moe Elzubeir wrote: > > > So I take it we are at square 0 ? > > > > Not exactly, but close. > > > > > I mean, where do I look to see exactly > > > what needs to be implemented and what the agreed upon > > > approach(es) if any. > > > > You can look in the archives of this mailing list. > > I'm at a loss here, why is it that qemacs > > http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemacs > > has been able to includebidi where-as emacs hasn't ? > Mind you I haven't been able to compile the package > (to verify for myself), but his claims still stand. qemacs is not emacs. qemacs is an editor with a number of similarities to emacs (mainly in the looks and behaviour. However, it is more of a light-weight text editor. Not much of a programable text-editor-and-a-kitchen-sink like emacs. > > I know nothing of lisp (let alone elisp), but can't > the inclusion of fribidi (fribidi.sf.net) be > incorporated somehow into the emacs code even as an > external call for the time being (irrespective of > inefficiency, ugliness, etc - given the user opts for > its inclusion) ? fribidi is a library that mainly provides a method for converting logical Hebrew text to visual Hebrew text (in conformance with the unicode standard, and efficiently). Actually, from what I understand, a similar algorithm has already been implemented in elisp by Eli. Using fribidi or a similar library probably means patching emacs itself. It also requires porting to various emacs ports. elisp is probably more portable, although has some penalty in performance. -- -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:tzafrir <at> technion.ac.il http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
RSS Feed