> It seems that you are not open for discussion. Taco, Hans, et al have
> asked you for explanations why you believe your approach is better, but
> you missed to provide facts.

I am open to discussions, and I think Hans said " a short description of the primitives is a good start" and I tried my first attempt by sending that doc explaining some of the primitives.

> That is life, those who are doing the programming work have the rights
> to make decisions, and without good arguments from other sides they will
> do what they think best.


True.


> And since there are quite a lot working with Arabic texts here on the
> list and it seems nobody chimed in with you, it seems that you are
> having an even smaller ground.

They still do not know much about the system that I am talking about. But I do not understand your purpose by saying that? Are you saying that it was a mistake that I decided to discuss about bidirectional algorithm? or you are putting me down and trying to tell me "get lost"? ok, if you wish so, I do then.

> Anyway, if you come back with good arguments I am sure Taco and Hans and
> Idris and whoever will take it up.

I have not finished yet and I have not gone thorough all of the features of TeX-e-Parsi, so I do not know what are your points?

---

Download free emoticons today! Holiday cheer from Messenger.