- From: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:48:18 +0200
- To: <public-iri@w3.org>
- Cc: <bidi@unicode.org>
Martin, It doesn't make sense to change to LTR in this case. Please consider an RTL user in an RTL environment, who knows nothing about LTR languages and scripts. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: public-iri-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:02 PM > To: Jony Rosenne; public-iri@w3.org > Cc: bidi@unicode.org > Subject: RE: IRIs and bidi: Addition regarding higher-level protocols > > > > Hello Jony, > > It turns out that for pure RTL IRIs, both an overall > left-to-right direction and an overall right-to-left > direction results in the same display order, right-to-left. > You can (almost) see this in the examples at > http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/BidiExamples, > the one that comes closest is example 3. > > This actually was one reason for going with *overall* > left-to-right direction, as opposed to component-wise > left-to-right direction. > > Regards, Martin. > > At 06:50 04/02/12 +0200, Jony Rosenne wrote: > > >I see why it would be desirable to demand an overall left-to-right > >direction for mixed (LTR and RTL) IRIs, but not for pure RTL > IRIs in an > >RTL environment. > > > >This requirement should be changed. > > > >Jony > >
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:49:14 UTC