- From: Jonathan Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:36:41 +0300
- To: "'\"Martin J. D?rst\"'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "'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>
My idea was that the user agent would convert the local language scheme identifiers back and forth to the standard ones, so this is only a matter for the local user agent. The network will not see the local versions. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of "Martin J. D?rst" > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:47 PM > To: Mark Davis ? > Cc: public-iri@w3.org; bidi@unicode.org; Shawn Steele; Murray Sargent; > aharon@google.com; John C Klensin > Subject: Re: Special ordering for BIDI URLs > > 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. D?rst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 11:37:10 UTC