Potentially redundant context rules

[Patrik Fältström]

On 29 jul 2009, at 09.09, Matitiahu Allouche wrote:

> Patrik Fältström wrote:
> "Can people that know bidi inside and out assure me that the rule(s)  
> in
> bidi already today, without any changes, implement exactly the same
> rule as tables context rule does?"
>
> First we should see the latest and greatest version of the bidi  
> rules.  Or
> are they still the same as of November 2008?  If so, maybe the first  
> step
> should be to update the rules according to comments submitted  
> meanwhile,
> then to check how they overlap with context rules.

Well, Chris has already claimed:

> [and our point is that the rules are in BOTH context and BIDI at the  
> moment, thus redundant and only NEED to be in one!]

Is that a true or false statement if you look at drafts draft-ietf- 
idnabis-bidi-03.txt and draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-06c.txt?

http://stupid.domain.name/ietf/draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-03.txt
http://stupid.domain.name/stuff/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-06c.txt

I.e. I MUST know whether it is actually redundant or whether we need  
to make changes to Bidi due to this request given the agreement we did  
reach at the session.

My view, and what I saw as consensus (which might be the wrong  
conclusion), is that the rules are *NOT* the same, and that some  
changes are needed.

    Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090729/9875395e/attachment.pgp