W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > February 2004

RE: IRIs and bidi: Addition regarding higher-level protocols

From: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:48:18 +0200
To: <public-iri@w3.org>
Cc: <bidi@unicode.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c3f1a1$2ac8d7a0$0401c80a@QSM4>

Martin,

It doesn't make sense to change to LTR in this case. 

Please consider an RTL user in an RTL environment, who knows nothing about
LTR languages and scripts.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-iri-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:02 PM
> To: Jony Rosenne; public-iri@w3.org
> Cc: bidi@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: IRIs and bidi: Addition regarding higher-level protocols
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Jony,
> 
> It turns out that for pure RTL IRIs, both an overall 
> left-to-right direction and an overall right-to-left 
> direction results in the same display order, right-to-left. 
> You can (almost) see this in the examples at 
> http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/BidiExamples,
> the one that comes closest is example 3.
> 
> This actually was one reason for going with *overall* 
> left-to-right direction, as opposed to component-wise 
> left-to-right direction.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> At 06:50 04/02/12 +0200, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> 
> >I see why it would be desirable to demand an overall left-to-right 
> >direction for mixed (LTR and RTL) IRIs, but not for pure RTL 
> IRIs in an 
> >RTL environment.
> >
> >This requirement should be changed.
> >
> >Jony
> >
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:49:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:12 UTC