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

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

From: Thomas Milo <tmilo@decotype.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:14:32 -0400
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <8264ECBC-4C0A-49B7-BF2C-97BE1C013D5C@decotype.com>
Cc: Slim Amamou <slim@alixsys.com>, 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>
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
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 18:14:36 GMT

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