W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > February 2004

RE: [bidi] Re: IRIs and bidi: Addition regarding higher-level protocols

From: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:19:02 +0200
To: "'Matitiahu Allouche'" <matial@il.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>, <bidi@unicode.org>
Message-ID: <001201c3f233$f48e82a0$0401c80a@QSM4>

How can we, in this case, explain to the user that he needs an invisible

Anyway, the wording suggested by Martin, "as if they were preceded  by
U+202A, LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING (LRE), and followed by U+202C, POP
DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING (PDF)" solves the problem.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matitiahu Allouche [mailto:matial@il.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:15 AM
> To: Jony Rosenne
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org; bidi@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: [bidi] Re: IRIs and bidi: Addition regarding 
> higher-level protocols
> <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. <end of Jony Rosenne quote>
> But if an IRI is pure RTL, can you show real cases where 
> putting LRE/PDF around it is going to make a difference in 
> its display?
> Mati
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 08:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:14:30 UTC