- From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:58:40 +0100
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, IETF IMAA list <ietf-imaa@imc.org>, public-iri@w3.org
> Nevertheless, the example of the glyph sequence "the-arabs=BARA-LA" > having two utterly different internal representations remains a strong > reason not to allow such local-parts. But the qlyph sequence ab.CD.ef (display order) already has two completely different internal representations: If it was rendered in an LTR context, the corresponding domain name (in logical order) is ab.DC.ef If it's in an RTL context, unless I'm mistaken, the corresponding domain name is ef.DC.ab ie in one case the TLD is ef, in the other case it is ab. As I understand it the way that the IRI draft currently resolves this is to specify that IRIs are always rendered in an LTR context. Can I pose another question: if IMA practice were to follow the currently proposed IRI practice (ie render by simply applying bidi in an LTR context), then the e-mail address (logical order) USER@DOMAIN.com would render as: NIAMOD@RESU.com Would Hebrew/Arabic e-mail users find this natural? Or would they prefer the @-sign to logically separate the address into a localpart and a domain: RESU@NIAMOD.com Further, consider the address owner-LIST@DOMAIN.com (logical order). Part of the rationale for the current design of ToASCII is to allow constructs such as this. This would render as: owner-NIAMOD@TSIL.com Again, is this natural? If users of RTL languages are confortable with embeddings such as BARA.BEW.com (for WEB.ARAB.com) then I see no reason why not, but it would be good to get some feedback. -roy
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 14:59:00 UTC