From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3F2EE132.9000206@nas.com> From: Jack Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030416 Thunderbird/0.1a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] yet another font package converted to plan9 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:41:54 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 10d00d60-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 andrey mirtchovski wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Joel Salomon wrote: >>Hebrew seems to imply that right-to-left text has been implemented in >>plan9 - which I know it hasn't. Besides the text *is* backwards - those If someone were to tackle some facility for right-to-left text, would it make sense to try to do top-to-bottom at the same time (i.e. arbitrary text orientation?), or do you think it would be better to have a system that was entirely one orientation or another? I haven't been in an environment with languages in multiple orientations. Would it make sense to read something on the order of 'rm c.hsabta' or 'rm hsabta.c' where hsabta is atbash in Hebrew glyphs? Or would it be relatively easier to just read 'c.hsabta mr' from right to left? In a mixed-orientation environment, what would be the correct output of 'ls *.c'? -Jack (just musing)