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

RE: Special ordering for BIDI URLs

From: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir <aghadir@citc.gov.sa>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:52:32 +0300
Message-ID: <0F9C0B65969D644EA7B34DF381465F660153A412@RY02MAIL.citc.gov.sa>
To: "Slim Amamou" <slim@alixsys.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, <public-iri@w3.org>, <bidi@unicode.org>, "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "Murray Sargent" <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>, <aharon@google.com>
Well check this out




cause your proof was disproved back then.



From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Slim Amamou
Sent: 25/May/2010 1:30 PM
To: Martin J. Dürst
Cc: Mark Davis ☕; public-iri@w3.org; bidi@unicode.org; Shawn Steele; Murray Sargent; aharon@google.com
Subject: Re: Special ordering for BIDI URLs



2010/5/25 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>



	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?


In the sense of a URI transmitted over the internet could not look the same on both ends in some situations.



	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'?





Slim Amamou | سليم عمامو

This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 10:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:41 UTC