RE: IRI BOF followup

I guess that covers some of my concerns, but the draft charter isn't clear if this is covered.

Regarding draft-duerst-iri-bis specifically, I think that we need to consciously seek native BIDI speakers.  Some previous IDN work seems to have missed that (don't know about IRI), so it might be good to include that "we will get input from native RTL speakers."

Chatting with Arabic-speaking colleagues and input from the Saudi government would expect very different behavior from what martin proposes.   Specifically they native speakers seem to treat the different parts as a list that progresses in a single direction.  Eg: http://ab.CDE.FGH/ij/kl/mn/op.html is parsed as a list {http, ab, cde, fgh, ij,kl, mn, op(.html?)}  So the expected rendering would be from the one end of the list to the other.

Furthermore, in an RTL/BIDI context, those users seem to prefer that the list be rendered from RTL.  In other words:

???/mn/kl/ij/HGF.EDC.ab//:http

I even got the expectation that in an Arabic browser they'd expect to see:

com.microsoft//:http

The ??? is because I don't know what the expectation of the file "op.html" is.  Is it expected to be a single unit, or 2 parts?  I didn't ask that question.

So I think this needs a serious usability study on the part of the WG.

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
Sent: ??????, ???????? 08, ??? 2009 14:11
To: Shawn Steele; public-iri@w3.org
Subject: RE: IRI BOF followup

The current document has extensive work on BIDI in it already.
Are there particular points or requirements that aren't already in scope by way of already being mentioned in draft-duerst-iri-bis?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Steele [mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Larry Masinter; public-iri@w3.org
Subject: RE: IRI BOF followup

I would like to see BIDI presentation explicitly called out.  It seems to be something that isn't working very well and maybe hasn't gotten enough expert attention in the past.  It could be part of the Internationalization BCP, but I think it should be called out.

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
Sent: ??????, ???????? 08, ??? 2009 11:42
To: public-iri@w3.org
Subject: FW: IRI BOF followup

FYI (should have sent this more broadly); we're trying to prep for the IESG review of forming an IRI working group.

Please review proposed charter ASAP.


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:46 AM
To: '"Martin J. Dürst"'; Alexey Melnikov
Cc: Pete Resnick; Ted Hardie; Lisa Dusseault
Subject: RE: IRI BOF followup

I made a pass over the draft charter to update the dates, deliverables, and to tweak Martin's wording. I made it clear that the only purpose of splitting the draft would be to facilitate editing.

Larry

Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 23:51:49 UTC