Use of Unicode 6.3 bidi format chars in CLDR number formats?

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 4/28/2016 3:44 PM, Peter Edberg wrote:
> Dear CLDR users,

Peter,

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.

A./