|
|
|
|
|
by Antibabelic
151 days ago
|
|
Because most software comes from Anglophone or at least Western markets, who often don't even suspect problems like this might pop up for customers in other countries. Unfortunately, it is generally up to the local developers to provide solutions, and they are often not up to the task. For example, Affinity Designer had poor RTL support for the longest time, due to certain assumptions built into their text rendering engine from the start. But making an equally featureful alternative with better support for these scripts would be a monumental task. |
|
Once those assumptions are embedded in things like glyph ordering, bidi resolution, cursor movement, hit‑testing, line breaking, and font fallback, fixing RTL becomes a retrofit instead of a design principle. By the time a team realizes the gap, the shaping and layout stack is so tightly coupled that adding proper bidi handling feels like a massive rewrite.
You see this pattern everywhere: PDFium (used by all Chromium browsers), various UI frameworks, and even some OS‑level text components still mishandle RTL in 2026. The symptoms are always the same — disappearing text, reversed glyph order, broken cursor navigation, or failure to commit text at all.
This isn’t a niche corner case. Hebrew, Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and other RTL scripts represent hundreds of millions of daily users. The real issue is that global language support is still treated as optional rather than foundational, and the technical debt from those early assumptions keeps compounding.