W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2011

Re: BIDI?

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 17:47:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_FDGWezYuMcFptSwO=XrccMbJEsZL=vn2BmVhvV6JsP7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Cc: Adil Allawi <adil@diwan.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
FYI, the Unicode consortium put a proposal out for review. It has roughly
the same structure as discussed earlier, but has as open issues (and
solicits feedback on) what the ordering should  be:

http://unicode-inc.blogspot.com/2011/07/pri-185-revision-of-uba-for-improved.html

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 21:20, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I strongly think that the fields have to be arranged LTR or RTL.  You
> can't have the "flipping" that happens when content is mixed and allows
> changing direction because it becomes unreadable.  For some things even an
> expert would have to pause to figure it out.
>
>
>
> However, if it's strongly RTL or RTL, worst case the whole thing appears
> "backwards".
>
>
>
> It's pretty clear that there's a desire in non-latin communities to have
> non-Latin forms of http://.  Even for LTR scripts that's an issue since
> changing keyboard layouts is a nuisance.  Of course, most browsers add the
> http:// for you, so it's not strictly necessary.
>
>
>
> -Shawn
>
>
>
>  
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* public-iri-request@w3.org [public-iri-request@w3.org] on behalf of
> Adil Allawi [adil@diwan.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 11, 2011 4:14 PM
> *To:* public-iri@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: BIDI?
>
>  I have thought for a while about the bidi requirements for IRIs.
>
> *Firstly*, I agree with Mark's general proposal - to have a uniform
> ordering of fields in IRIs. I have done some experiments with making Arabic
> tweets order right to left and the process is very similar. Figure out the
> 'fields' of rtl parts (e.g. Arabic phrases) and ltr parts (e.g. urls,
> smilies, #tags) then make sure these order uniformly right-to-left by
> inserting rlm and lrm marks.
>
> The big problem is that Bidi IRIs are already a reality and have been since
> ICANN allowed local language TLDs in 2009. So our ability to mange user
> expectations is limited by how Arabic IRIs behave now. Here is a good
> example from Qatar:
>
> http://الاعلي-للاتصالات.قطر/ar/news-events/event
>
> or using capitals to replace the Arabic words:
>
> http://QATAR.TELECOMS-SUPREME/ar/news-events/event
>
> The url is generally left-to-right except for the domain which is
> right-to-left. Arabic users now expect the domain part of an IRI to be
> ordered RTL if it is in Arabic.
>
> There is a need to have two directions for IRIs. I would suggest that the
> ordering direction is controlled by the direction of the language of the
> TLD. So السعودية domains should always draw rtl, but .sa will draw ltr.
>
>
> *Secondly*, The text editing interface for a Bidi IRI is a nightmare for
> an Arabic user. There is no consistent cursor or highlight behaviour across
> browsers. There is also no consistent user expectation - does the highlight
> extend visually or logically across the text? How would this be entered on a
> mobile phone with a numeric keypad?
>
> If one inserts an English letter inside the RTL domain, the whole domain
> will flip in around the English letter. How would a user understand about
> how to correct this?
>
> To get around these problems I would like to see a subset of IRIs that can
> be entirely ordered RTL. That would include the scheme and the path. Like
> so:
>
> ويب://الاعلي-للاتصالات قطر/ع/الصفحة_الرئيسية
>
> There would need to be Arabic translations of some (not all) scheme names
> (e.g. http and ftp). This would allow web developers to create IRIs that are
> easily typed, edited, moved between applications and transferred
> unambiguously from paper to computer and back again. This could be as part
> of a transitional phase either:
> - these are the only type of RTL IRI allowed until a large number of
> clients support a UBA extension.
> - this is a voluntary IRI restriction that can be recommended and validated
> independently.
>
> Adil
>
> On 27/04/2011 00:22, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>
> Here are some rough thoughts on how we could handle bidi IRIs.
>
>  http://goo.gl/QwSoo
>
>  Feedback is welcome.
>
> Mark*
> *
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 23:20, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>wrote:
>
>>   I'm wondering what the current thinking around BIDI IRIs is?  A few
>> things in draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-05 jump out at me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Shawn
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 00:47:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:01 GMT