perl-unicode

Re: [Encode] Farsi is Okay. The problem is in Indics!

2002-04-05 08:31:59
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 12:27:20AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 11:18 , Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Since it seems that we won't make it for Monday the 8th (MakeMaker is
still unfinished, and UTF-8 keys are still a bit dodgy, and so on), I
guess small updates on Encode (docs certainly, and obvious bugs) are
still okay-- and even the Farsi encodings, but please first ask
Roozbeh Pournader ( roozbeh(_at_)sharif(_dot_)edu ) the guy that seems to be
behind much of the Farsi computing stuff, whether (a) we should/could
include the Farsi mappings (b) which mappings (c) there are additional
complications we are not aware of (e.g. is it really just a simple
table mapping, or is something algorithmic needed).

I think you are mistaken Farsi for Indics.  Farsi is extended Arabic 
(script, that is) and it is indeed supported in MacFarsi already.  BIDI 
is tough but Encode does not (have to) care.

No, I'm not mistaken, I know that Farsi and Indics are different.
While Googling for the Farsi encodings I just got worried by the
frequent mentions of the bidi complications.  But Roozbeh would know
for certain, instead of us non-Farsi trying to sound like experts...

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen