because bidi has done absolutely noting in the creation of the pdf-file from this minimal text, but claims it:<br><br>\documentclass{article}<br>\usepackage{bidi,xltxtra}<br>\setmainfont{STFangsong}<br>\begin{document}<br>
中國好<br>\end{document}<br><br>Rembrandt<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:33, Vafa Khalighi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vafa@users.berlios.de">vafa@users.berlios.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="im"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div><br>This is question for Vafa: can you explain what is the reason that in .pdf file, created using xelatex+polyglossia with use of arabic as secondary language (the main is latin), bidi is credited as "creator"? I do understand that bidi is used for arabic, but, with due respect, I think it's very unfair to declare it as creator application instead of xe(la)tex.<br>
</div>
</div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>I have done this because someone in the past requested it. Why is this unfair? <br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Best wishes,<br>Vafa Khalighi<br>
</div>
<br><br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:<br>
<a href="http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex" target="_blank">http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>人有不為也而後可以有為<br><br>