Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Add optional normative guidance on bidi/whitespace serialization #889

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
aphillips opened this issue Sep 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Add optional normative guidance on bidi/whitespace serialization #889

aphillips opened this issue Sep 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
@aphillips
Labels
LDML48 LDML48 Release resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. Stale Obsolete? syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF

Comments

@aphillips
Copy link
Member

In response to merging #884 and the proposal in the bidi-usability design document, we agreed in the 2024-09-16 call to add an "optionally normative" section of the spec in the post-46 timeframe.
@aphillips aphillips added syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG LDML46.1 MF2.0 Draft Candidate labels Sep 16, 2024
@aphillips aphillips added LDML47 LDML 47 Release (Stable) and removed LDML46.1 MF2.0 Draft Candidate labels Nov 18, 2024
@aphillips aphillips added LDML48 LDML48 Release and removed LDML47 LDML 47 Release (Stable) labels Feb 14, 2025
@aphillips
Copy link
Member Author

Moving to 48

@aphillips aphillips self-assigned this Feb 14, 2025
@aphillips aphillips added resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. and removed Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG labels May 20, 2025
@aphillips
Copy link
Member Author

I intended to implement this today, but note that, since we created the issue, we made the default bidi strategy normatively required. That makes this item obsolete.

@aphillips aphillips added the Stale Obsolete? label May 20, 2025
@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

eemeli commented May 21, 2025

I don't think this is obsolete. We still ought to say when and what isolation or marks are to be used, as there are multiple options and situations where it's not clear whether isolation is to be preferred.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@aphillips aphillips

Labels
LDML48 LDML48 Release resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. Stale Obsolete? syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@aphillips @eemeli