- From: Slim Amamou <slim@alixsys.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:22:44 +0100
- To: Thomas Milo <tmilo@decotype.com>
- Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, "bidi@unicode.org" <bidi@unicode.org>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>, "aharon@google.com" <aharon@google.com>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinQiTGde01qVTNPoMSwh-6hE85akZnLDsWRZHZ_@mail.gmail.com>
It's the same case in Tunisia and Algeria On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Milo <tmilo@decotype.com> wrote: > Morocco is an interesting case because there Arabic exists in a > predominantly francophone enivironment. > > Thomas Milo > Sent from miloPhone > www.decotype.com > tmilo@decotype.com > +31-6-4188-0859 iPhone > +31-6-2450-3943 Mobile > +31-20-662-5172 Office > > في ٢٥/٠٥/٢٠١٠، الساعة ١١:٤٧ ص، كتب "Martin J. Dürst" < > duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>: > > > Hello Slim, >> >> On 2010/05/25 17:34, Slim Amamou wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Mark Davis ☕<mark@macchiato.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> (...) >>>> >>>> But we're not. The best way to solve the problem that I can think of can >>>> be >>>> done right now. Any significant site that wants to support BIDI >>>> languages >>>> should provide for the ability to have IRIs with *all *RTL characters: >>>> host name, path, query, fragment. >>>> >>>> >>> This is undesirable because it will create isolated communities >>> >> >> That's indeed a problem to some extent if mix-and match across >> directionality boundaries would be forbidden. I personally think that >> forbidding is a bad idea. But I think that market forces will create >> pressure towards favoring all-RTL (or mostly-RTL) and all-LTR (or >> mostly-LTR) IRIs. >> >> and an >>> internet that does not look the same depending on whether you are >>> American >>> or Moroccan. >>> >> >> I think that's much less of a problem. It's not whether you are American >> or Moroccan, it's whether you are looking at an RTL IRI or an LTR IRI. >> There's nothing inherently better with ordering the components from left to >> right or from right to left, and there's nothing "isolating" because it >> wouldn't take anybody more than a few seconds to get the idea that >> RTL-character IRIs run RTL, whereas LTR-character IRIs run the other way >> round. People are already heavily used to the fact that Arabic and Hebrew >> are RTL, anyway. >> >> This is maybe the case already now, but it should not be our >>> aim. In a sense, this even breaks the principle of net neutrality. >>> >> >> In what sense exactly would this break net neutrality? >> >> >> For the record I proposed enforcing LTR directionality for URIs as a >>> solution, and already proved that at least for the HOST part (IDN), and >>> given the current specs, labels MUST be ordered LTR. >>> >> >> Could you give a pointer to that 'proof'? >> >> >> During the discussions I understood the difficulties of such a change >>> which >>> includes at the same time unicode, IDN and URI (we could say the whole >>> internet). But I still don't see any other solution which is viable and >>> consistent with internets principles. >>> >> >> I think Mark has explained the restrictions on a solution in quite some >> details, as I have earlier. Your proposals would be nice, but I don't see >> how we'll get there, except with some impossible magic. >> >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> -- >> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University >> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp >> >> -- Slim Amamou | سليم عمامو http://alixsys.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 10:23:19 UTC