Use of Unicode 6.3 bidi format chars in CLDR number formats?
Asmus Freytag (c)
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 28 21:30:20 CDT 2016
On 4/28/2016 3:44 PM, Peter Edberg wrote:
> Dear CLDR users,
I think this is where a "one size fits all" solution isn't the answer.
Ideally, I'll be able to use CLDR (and formatting tools depending on it)
to format date/time/number strings for a variety of consumers.
Plain text (pre 6.3), Plain text with isolates support, and plain text
for embedding into markup (where I'll supply external markup to isolate
and otherwise prep the field).
Given that CLDR data should be specifying the desired appearance (not
the bidi controls necessary to get to that) it should be possible to
provide mechanical conversion between these formats, rather than having
to make a single choice for the data base.
Not only will "pre 6.3" support be an issue for a long time to come, I
am confidently predicting that the need for multiple bidi flavors will
continue beyond the adoption of the isolates. Whether a string is part
of an (arbitrary) plain text stream or a separate data field (with its
scope determined by markup and with it's own bidi styling) will continue
to call for somewhat different data.
Given the correct choice of internal format for the database, it should
be possible to provide all of these flavors mechanically, thus avoiding
the full cost of duplication, while freeing users from having to make
those format translations themselves.
More information about the CLDR-Users