RE: [bidi] Re: BIDI?

IMO: "any" RTL indicates that it should have that ordering.  We've also received some feedback that the user expectations may depend at least partially due on user preference. At least some Arabic speakers seem to prefer com.microsoft.www//:http, even if there are no Arabic characters in the string.  I also gather that this may not extend to Hebrew speakers, so apparently there's not a "one-size-fits-all" for bidirectional cultures.

As you point out (and was in my unsent draft from 3 days ago) "Another way to think of it may be 'if the user sees it on the side of a bus, how do they expect to type it?'"

"seeing it" ~ presentation order, "typing it" ~ logical order. (Though I'm sure there're exceptions).



-Shawn

 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste


________________________________
From: Matitiahu Allouche [matial@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 12:26 AM
To: Mohamed Mohie
Cc: bidi@unicode.org; bidi-bounce@unicode.org; Mark Davis ☕; public-iri@w3.org; public-iri-request@w3.org; Shawn Steele
Subject: Re: [bidi] Re: BIDI?

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<http://my.own.domain.com/>" (where
upper case letters represent RTL letters) will be displayed as "
http://YM.NWO.NIAMOD.com<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