Revert r174133, r178901 and r178981 to fix Mac

Revert r174133, r178901 and r178981 to fix Mac

There was a regression bug filed (bug 377445) shortly
after the original commit, however the author chose
not to revert, but rather instead attempt a fix.

The later of those fixes was marked not lgtm' by another
reviewer.

I'm rolling out the whole mess to unblock shipping M37.

R=eae
BUG=377445
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=180004

[eae, 2014-08-11 19:51:09]

LGTM

[behdad_google, 2014-08-11 19:55:44]

lgtm

[eseidel, 2014-08-11 20:06:14]

The CQ bit was checked by eseidel@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 20:07:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/eseidel@chromium.org/459153002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 21:20:31]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_blink_dbg on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_dbg/builds/2...)
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/2...)
  mac_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_rel/builds/19337)
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/22120)

[eseidel, 2014-08-11 21:41:02]

The CQ bit was checked by eseidel@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 21:41:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/eseidel@chromium.org/459153002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 22:37:07]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/22132)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-11 23:10:07]

Change committed as 180004

[Inactive, 2014-08-12 13:14:57]

Just for the record, Joshi did not really attempt to fix the issue. He merely
chose to do a partial revert instead of a full revert.

The original CL added:
+        // RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK
+        0x200B, 0x200F,
+        // RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE
+        0x202A, 0x202E,
+        // Nominal Digit Shape
+        0x2060, 0x206F,

The partial revert removed 2 out of 3:
-        // RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK
-        0x200B, 0x200F,
-        // RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE
-        0x202A, 0x202E,

The partial revert did fix the regression according to Joshi. I don't have any
issue with reverting everything and starting from scratch considering Joshi does
not understand yet the reason for the regression though.

[eseidel, 2014-08-12 17:45:19]

Thank you for clarifying Chris.