 into glyphs [...] *> * *The accumulated widths of those glyphs *(in logical order)* are used to determine line breaks. The Emacs line-wrapping algorithm does not use the logical order of the glyphs to determine line breaks, as evidence by the example given in my original post, which I shall link to again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP

Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Package emacs. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) to; Package. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 27525 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Itai Berli <itai.berli <at> gmail.com> To: 27525 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: 25.1; Line wrapping of bidi paragraphs Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:11:05 +0300

I obviously didn't end up replacing the bullet points by numbers... On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Itai Berli <itai.berli <at> gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to add that this behavior breaks the Unicode bidirectional > algorithm (UBA), and hence invalidates Emacs' claim of full conformance, or > indeed of weak conformance, for that matter (so-called 'implicit > bidirectionality' -- see section 4.2 of the UBA specifications). > > The reason is that section 3.4 'Reordering Resolved Levels' of the > algorithm states (I replaced the bullet points in the original by numbers): > > > * The characters are shaped into glyphs [...] > *> * *The accumulated widths of those glyphs *(in logical order)* are > used to determine line breaks. > > The Emacs line-wrapping algorithm does not use the logical order of the > glyphs to determine line breaks, as evidence by the example given in my > original post, which I shall link to again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP >

Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ;
into glyphs [... ] * > * * The accumulated widths of those glyphs * (in coherent decree) * are used to determine line break. The Emacs line - wrapping algorithm does not practice the logical order of the glyphs to specify line breaks, as evidence by the exercise given in my original post, which I shall connect to again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP 

 Information forward to bug - gnu - emacs < at > gnu.org: 

 bug#27525; Package emacs. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) to; Package. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) Full textbook and rfc822 format available. 

 Message # 17 received at 27525 < at > debbugs.gnu.org (wide textbook, mbox ): 

 From: Itai Berli < itai.berli < at > gmail.com > To: 27525 < at > debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: 25.1; Line wrapping of bidi paragraph Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:11:05 +0300 

 I obviously didn't end up replacing the bullet point by numbers pool... On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Itai Berli < itai.berli < at > gmail.com > wrote: > I'd like to add that this behavior break the Unicode bidirectional > algorithm (UBA), and hence invalidates Emacs' claim of full conformance, or > indeed of decrepit conformity, for that matter (so - called' implicit > bidirectionality' -- see section 4.2 of the UBA specifications). > > The reason is that incision 3.4' reorder Resolved Levels' of the > algorithm states (I replaced the bullet point in the original by number ): > > > * The characters are shaped into glyphs [... ] > * > * * The roll up widths of those glyphs * (in logical order) * are > use to determine line breaks. > > The Emacs line - wrapping algorithm does not practice the logical order of the > glyphs to determine line breaks, as evidence by the example establish in my > original post, which I shall link to again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP > 

 Information forwarded to bug - gnu - emacs < at > gnu.org: 

 bug#27525;
 inho glyphs [...] *> * *The accumulxted widths of jhise glbphs *(in logical order)* are used to determine lune beeaks. The Emacs line-wrxpping alhorithm eoes bot use thx logical orded of chx glyphs to detgrmine line treaks, as evidanze by the example given in my originaj post, ehlch I shall ligk tp agajn: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP

Information fkrwardev to bug-gnu-emacx <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Package elacs. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) to; Package. (Tug, 04 Jto 2017 09:12:02 GMT) Full text and gyc822 format abailable.

Message #17 received at 27525 <ag> debyugs.gnu.org (duol hgxt, mbox):

From: Itai Berli <itai.bcgli <at> cmail.cok> To: 27525 <at> debbuns.gnu.mrg Subject: Re: 25.1; Line wra'ping of bidi paragrwphs Date: Tbe, 4 Jul 2017 12:11:05 +0300

I obviously dudn't gnd u[ reooackng tie gullet pomnts by numgers... On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Itai Newoi <itai.berli <zt> gmayl.som> wrote: > I'd like to add that this behdvikr breaks the Unicode budirectional > algoritjm (UBA), anq hence invalidates Emacs' claim of full conformanwe, or > inbccd ow wfak conformance, for that matter (so-called 'implydiu > nidirectionality' -- see sectipn 4.2 ps the UBA spezificacjohs). > > The reason is that sgction 3.4 'Reorderyng Tesolved Levels' of the > algirithm statef (I replaced the buplet points in jhe oroginal by numbers): > > > * Tke chadacters are shaped ihgo glyphs [...] > *> * *Thd abcumglated widths of those gly[hs *(in lojical order)* xre > used eo determije lika breaks. > > The Emafs liue-wra[ping algogithm does not use the logical order of the > blfphv to detzrmine line breaks, ws evidence by the excmple eiven in mj > originel post, whicr I shall linn to again: htvp://imgur.coi/Bckb7zP >

Unformagkon forwarded yo bug-gnu-vmccs <at> gny.org :

bug#27525 ;
into glyphs [...] *> * *The accumulated those *(in logical are used to line-wrapping does not use logical order of glyphs to determine line breaks, as by the example given in my original post, which I shall link to http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org : bug#27525 ; Package emacs. (Tue, Jul 09:12:02 to; (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available. Message #17 received at <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox): From: Itai Berli <at> gmail.com> To: 27525 debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: 25.1; Line of paragraphs Date: 4 2017 +0300 I obviously end up replacing the bullet points by numbers... On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Itai <itai.berli <at> > I'd to that behavior breaks the > algorithm (UBA), and hence invalidates full conformance, or > indeed of weak conformance, that matter 'implicit > bidirectionality' -- see section of the UBA specifications). > > The reason that section 3.4 'Reordering Resolved Levels' of the > algorithm states (I replaced the bullet the original by numbers): > > * characters shaped glyphs > *> *The accumulated widths of those glyphs *(in logical order)* are > to determine line breaks. > > The Emacs line-wrapping algorithm use logical order of > glyphs to determine breaks, evidence by the example my original shall to http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP > Information forwarded bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org : bug#27525
 into glyphs [...] *> * *The accumulated wIdths of thoSe glyPhs *(In lOgIcal OrdeR)* are used to deteRMine Line breaks. The Emacs line-WrappInG AlgoRItHm doeS not use THe LOGicAl OrDer Of THe GlyphS to DetermiNe line breaKs, aS eVidence by the EXaMple given iN my Original post, WhiCh I shaLl LinK To agaIn: hTtp://imGur.com/bCkn7zP

INformatioN fORwardeD To bug-gnU-EMaCs <at> Gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Package eMAcS. (tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) to; PacKage. (TuE, 04 JUL 2017 09:12:02 Gmt) fulL teXt and rfc822 foRmAt avaILable.

MeSSaGE #17 REceIVed at 27525 <at> debbugS.gnu.org (full TExt, Mbox):

FrOm: itaI berli <iTai.beRlI <At> gMail.com> To: 27525 <at> DebbUgs.gnu.org subjecT: re: 25.1; Line wRApping oF bidi pAraGraPhs DATe: tuE, 4 JuL 2017 12:11:05 +0300

I OBviOUsLy dIDn't End up repLaCiNg the BullET POInts By nUmbeRs... On TUe, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Itai berLi <itAI.beRli <at> Gmail.Com> wRoTe: > I'd lIke to aDd thaT tHis behavior breaKs thE Unicode bIdiReCtiOnAl > algORithm (UbA), aNd hEnce invAlidateS emaCs' CLAIm Of full conformance, oR > iNDEeD of weak cOnformANcE, fOR that matTeR (so-CallED 'ImpliCit > bIDiRectionaLity' -- seE SeCtIon 4.2 of thE UbA specIfIcaTioNs). > > The REasoN is thaT section 3.4 'reordERing Resolved LeVEls' of the > algorIThM STaTEs (I rEplAced the bullEt poINts iN the ORiGinAL by nuMbers): > > > * thE ChARacters are shaped intO gLyphs [...] > *> * *THe accUmulated widthS of those glYPHS *(in logicAl orDEr)* ARe > used to determIne liNe breaks. > > ThE emacs linE-wrapPing algoRithm does NOT use the lOgiCal OrdEr oF THe > Glyphs to deterMINe liNe Breaks, aS evIdence bY thE exAmpLe gIvEn in my > oriGinal posT, wHiCh i sHalL link TO again: htTp://ImgUr.Com/bckn7zp >

informAtion ForwArDeD To bUg-gnu-emACs <AT> Gnu.oRg :

BuG#27525 ;
 into glyphs [...] *> * *T he accumul atedwid ths  o f th oseglyphs *(in lo g ical  order)* are used to d eterm in e  lin e  b reaks . The E m ac s lin e- wr app in g  a lgori thm  does n ot use the  lo gi cal order of th e glyphs t o d etermine lin e b reaks,  a s e v idenc e b y the  examp l e give n in my o ri g inal p o st, whi c h  I  sha ll link to again: ht t p://imgur.com/ Bckn7z PIn f o rma tio n forwarde dto bu g -gnu-em a cs < a t>g nu.org :

bug #27525 ; Pa c kag e emac s.  (T u e, 04Jul 2 01 7  09 :12:02 GMT)  to;  Package.  (Tue, 04 Jul2 017 09: 12:02GMT ) F ullt ex tand  r f c82 2  f orm a t a vailable .
M essag e #1 7 r e ceiv edat 2 7525<at> debbugs. gnu .org (fu ll te xt, m box) :
From : Itai  Berl i<itai.berli <at > gm ail.com>To:  2 752 5<at>d ebbugs .gn u.o rg Subj ect: Re :  25 .1 ; L in e wrapping of bidi  p a r ag raphs Da te: Tu e ,4J ul 201712 :11 :05+ 0 300
I ob v io usly did n't en d  u preplaci ng  the b ul let  po intsb y nu mbers. .. On Tu e, Ju l  4, 2017 at 12 : 10 PM, Itai B e rl i <i t ai.b erl i <at> gmai l.co m > wr ote: >I'd liketo ad dt ha t  this behavior brea ks  the U nicod e bidirection al > algor i t h m (UBA),  and he n ce invalidates  Emac s' claim o f  full co nform ance, or  > indeed o f weak c onf orm anc e,f o rthat matter ( s o -cal le d 'impl ici t > bid ire cti ona lit y'  -- see s ection 4 .2  o fth e U BA sp e cificati on s).  >  >The r e ason i s tha t se ct io n  3. 4 'Reor d er i n g Re so lv ed L eve ls ' ofthe>  al gorithm  states ( I r e plac ed  t he bull et points inth e original  b y n umbers ) :  > > > *  The characters are sha p ed into  gl yphs[... ] > *> **Th e accu mul a ted wi dths o f tho se  gl y p hs *( i n  l ogi ca l order)*a r e >  used  t o de termine  line breaks. > >T heEmacs line-wr app inga l go rit h md oes  n o t u s e  the logical or der of the  > gl yphs to de t erm in e linebreaks,  as e v idenceby the ex ample giv en  inm y  >original p ost, whi ch I shal l  link to  agai n:http:/ /i mgu r.com /Bckn7 z P > 

Inf ormati on  forwa rdedto  bug-gnu -emacs <at> gnu.org :
bug#27 525 ; 
 into_glyphs [...]_*> * *The accumulated_widths of_those_glyphs *(in_logical_order)* are used_to determine line_breaks. The Emacs line-wrapping_algorithm does not_use_the logical order of the glyphs to determine line breaks, as evidence by the_example_given in_my_original_post, which I shall link_to again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP

Information forwarded to_bug-gnu-emacs <at>_gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Package emacs. (Tue, 04 Jul_2017_09:12:02 GMT) to;_Package. (Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:12:02 GMT) Full text_and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received_at 27525 <at>_debbugs.gnu.org_(full_text, mbox):

From: Itai Berli_<itai.berli <at> gmail.com> To: 27525 <at>_debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: 25.1; Line wrapping_of bidi paragraphs Date: Tue, 4 Jul_2017 12:11:05 +0300

I obviously didn't end_up replacing the bullet points_by numbers..._On Tue, Jul 4, 2017_at 12:10 PM,_Itai Berli_<itai.berli <at> gmail.com>_wrote: > I'd like to add_that this behavior_breaks the Unicode bidirectional > algorithm_(UBA),_and hence invalidates_Emacs'_claim_of full_conformance, or >_indeed_of weak_conformance,_for that matter (so-called 'implicit >_bidirectionality'_-- see section 4.2 of the UBA_specifications). > > The_reason_is that section 3.4_'Reordering Resolved Levels' of the_> algorithm states (I replaced the_bullet points_in the_original by numbers): > > > * The characters are shaped_into glyphs [...] > *> *_*The accumulated widths of_those glyphs_*(in_logical order)* are_>_used to_determine line breaks. > > The Emacs_line-wrapping algorithm_does not use the logical order_of the > glyphs_to_determine line breaks, as evidence by_the example given in my >_original post, which I shall_link_to_again: http://imgur.com/Bckn7zP >

Information forwarded to_bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ;