- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:47:01 +0900
- To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org, bidi@unicode.org, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, Murray Sargent <murrays@exchange.microsoft.com>, aharon@google.com, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
On 2010/05/25 9:10, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > [The one real remaining piece is the scheme; the IRI is still understandable > (though ugly) if it has to be ASCII, but it would be somewhat better if it > could have a RTL alias. (Pure digit fields like IP addresses are a bit > ugly, but seldom used.)] [I'm not sure what the IP address has to do in a discussion on schemes, I'll comment on the scheme only here.] In a short hallway discussion at the Hiroshima IETF, John Klensin and me discussed the possibility of allowing non-ASCII scheme names, but strictly limiting these to RTL scripts in practical use. If such a limitation were politically acceptable, it would provide a means to make RTL IRIs more consistent while avoiding an explosion of scheme identifiers. However, we were both skeptical about the political feasibility; once there are Arabic and Hebrew (and Syriac and Thaana and Dhivehi) identifiers, it's easy to imagine that others will want Greek and Cyrillic and Chinese and Korean and so on and so on and cry foul if they don't get it. That would explode the space of scheme identifiers. It should be clear that allowing scheme identifiers per language would be going totally over board. It would be one transcription for Arabic (script), not one for Arabic (language), one for Urdu, one for Persian, and so on. This is how it has worked with Latin schemes up to now, http works for English, French, Spanish, German, Italian,... and many more languages. Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 10:47:50 UTC