- From: Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:26:03 +0300
- To: Mohamed Mohie <MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com>
- Cc: bidi@unicode.org, bidi-bounce@unicode.org, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, public-iri-request@w3.org, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <OFF98429C9.9680A107-ONC22578A6.00279469-C22578A6.0028E324@il.ibm.com>
Please define "mostly Latin" and "mostly Arabic or Hebrew". Are you suggesting to count LTR and RTL characters? Are they all equally weighted? Does the counting include the scheme (e.g. "http")? the TLD? Please consider that the prime objective, IMHO, is to enable easy and unambiguous human translation from a displayed IRI (napkin, bus side) to the corresponding logical string. Shalom (Regards), Mati Bidi Architect Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts IBM Israel Fax: +972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160 From: Mohamed Mohie <MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com> To: Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM@IBMIL Cc: bidi@unicode.org, bidi-bounce@unicode.org, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Date: 03/06/2011 22:06 Subject: Re: [bidi] Re: BIDI? Sent by: public-iri-request@w3.org Hello Mati, To overcome the problem you highlighted below I have a suggestion to be added for the URL design which is to set the embedding level according to the directionality of the domain name. 1- If the domain name "MY.OWN.DOMAIN" is mostly Latin set the embedding level to even. 2- If the domain name "MY.OWN.DOMAIN" is mostly Arabic or Hebrew set the embedding level to odd. Thanks And Best regards, Mohamed Mohie , PMP® ________________________________________________ GCoC BIDI , Advisory Software Engineer, Project Manager, M.Sc. Cairo Technology Development Center (CTDC) IBM Egypt email : mohiem@eg.ibm.com From: Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com> To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Cc: bidi@unicode.org, bidi-bounce@unicode.org, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Date: 27/04/2011 10:38 ص Subject: [bidi] Re: BIDI? Sent by: bidi-bounce@unicode.org Hello, Mark! I am glad to see somebody daring to tackle this issue. You wrote: <quote> If a bidiIri is recognized, then it is handled by the UBA as if each separator is surrounded by: LRM (if the embedding level is even) or RLM (if the embedding level is odd) <end of quote> This design has the following consequences, which IMHO are not optimal: a) The same URL (IRI) will be displayed differently according to the embedding level. This is confusing. b) Pure Latin-character URLs will be displayed in a new and strange way when the embedding level is odd. For instance, "htttp://docs.google.com" will be displayed as "com.google.docs//:http". Consequently, I second Slim Amamou's suggestion to "have a predefined/enforced directionality in the specs for each scheme? (ex. LTR for URLs)". It is true that pure or mostly Hebrew or Arabic URLs will be displayed in a way which may seem strange. For instance, "http://MY.OWN.DOMAIN.com" (where upper case letters represent RTL letters) will be displayed as " http://YM.NWO.NIAMOD.com", but 1. The scheme and the TLD currently are pure LTR, and I guess that this is not going to change soon, so the display of mixed LTR/RTL URLs will be strange anyway. 2. The use of domain names with RTL labels is still scarce, there is no common usage to overcome, so the public will get accustomed to the "strange" display right from the beginning. Shalom (Regards), Mati Bidi Architect Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts IBM Israel Fax: +972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160 From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Cc: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, bidi@unicode.org Date: 27/04/2011 02:24 Subject: [bidi] Re: BIDI? Sent by: bidi-bounce@unicode.org Here are some rough thoughts on how we could handle bidi IRIs. http://goo.gl/QwSoo Feedback is welcome. Mark On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 23:20, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote: I'm wondering what the current thinking around BIDI IRIs is? A few things in draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-05 jump out at me. -Shawn http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
Received on Sunday, 5 June 2011 07:27:24 UTC