W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [bidi] Re: Special ordering for BIDI URLs

From: Slim Amamou <slim@alixsys.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:22:44 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQiTGde01qVTNPoMSwh-6hE85akZnLDsWRZHZ_@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Milo <tmilo@decotype.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, "bidi@unicode.org" <bidi@unicode.org>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>, "aharon@google.com" <aharon@google.com>
It's the same case in Tunisia and Algeria

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Milo <tmilo@decotype.com> wrote:

> Morocco is an interesting case because there Arabic exists in a
> predominantly francophone enivironment.
>
> Thomas Milo
> Sent from miloPhone
> www.decotype.com
> tmilo@decotype.com
> +31-6-4188-0859 iPhone
> +31-6-2450-3943 Mobile
> +31-20-662-5172 Office
>
> في ٢٥‏/٠٥‏/٢٠١٠، الساعة ١١:٤٧ ص، كتب "Martin J. Dürst" <
> duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>:
>
>
>  Hello Slim,
>>
>> On 2010/05/25 17:34, Slim Amamou wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Mark Davis ☕<mark@macchiato.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  (...)
>>>>
>>>> But we're not. The best way to solve the problem that I can think of can
>>>> be
>>>> done right now. Any significant site that wants to support BIDI
>>>> languages
>>>> should provide for the ability to have IRIs with *all *RTL characters:
>>>> host name, path, query, fragment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is undesirable because it will create isolated communities
>>>
>>
>> That's indeed a problem to some extent if mix-and match across
>> directionality boundaries would be forbidden. I personally think that
>> forbidding is a bad idea. But I think that market forces will create
>> pressure towards favoring all-RTL (or mostly-RTL) and all-LTR (or
>> mostly-LTR) IRIs.
>>
>>  and an
>>> internet that does not look the same depending on whether you are
>>> American
>>> or Moroccan.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's much less of a problem. It's not whether you are American
>> or Moroccan, it's whether you are looking at an RTL IRI or an LTR IRI.
>> There's nothing inherently better with ordering the components from left to
>> right or from right to left, and there's nothing "isolating" because it
>> wouldn't take anybody more than a few seconds to get the idea that
>> RTL-character IRIs run RTL, whereas LTR-character IRIs run the other way
>> round. People are already heavily used to the fact that Arabic and Hebrew
>> are RTL, anyway.
>>
>>  This is maybe the case already now, but it should not be our
>>> aim. In a sense, this even breaks the principle of net neutrality.
>>>
>>
>> In what sense exactly would this break net neutrality?
>>
>>
>>  For the record I proposed enforcing LTR directionality for URIs as a
>>> solution, and already proved that at least for the HOST part (IDN), and
>>> given the current specs, labels MUST be ordered LTR.
>>>
>>
>> Could you give a pointer to that 'proof'?
>>
>>
>>  During the discussions I understood the difficulties of such a change
>>> which
>>> includes at the same time unicode, IDN and URI (we could say the whole
>>> internet). But I still don't see any other solution which is viable and
>>> consistent with internets principles.
>>>
>>
>> I think Mark has explained the restrictions on a solution in quite some
>> details, as I have earlier. Your proposals would be nice, but I don't see
>> how we'll get there, except with some impossible magic.
>>
>>
>> Regards,    Martin.
>>
>> --
>> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
>> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
>>
>>


-- 
Slim Amamou | سليم عمامو
http://alixsys.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 10:23:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:57 GMT