Re: [bidi] BIDI?

I have been working on summarizing this - I will try to post something 
tomorrow.

Adil

On 06/06/2011 13:53, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> Could someone summarize the requirements for BIDI representation and 
> display, and the design choices we’re facing and how they match up 
> against the requirements?
>
> It seems to me that we’re in the unfortunate situation that the 
> “desirable” handling of IRIs for BIDI identifiers cannot actually be 
> accomplished with the technology at hand, and that we’re going to have 
> to wind up with the unfortunate but unavoidable situation where we 
> have to make some compromises to get something that will work at all.
>
> These lengthy discussions about “desirable” handling of BIDI URIs 
> don’t help much if we’re not actually evaluating technological solutions.
>
> It may be that “side of bus” printing for BIDI IRIs are limited, for 
> example, or that we might need to establish some other additional 
> typographical conventions for side-of-bus display of BIDI IRIs.
>
> The technology we have at hand is pretty weak
>
> – can non-visible direction characters be part of the IRI?
>
> -Can we, should we, advise those who are implementing novel IRI 
> display mechanisms (“show IRI in address bar”) and IRI entry 
> mechanisms (“type IRI in the address bar”) to do something different 
> from the ordinary “give IRI string to ordinary unicode string display 
> mechanism”.
>
> Larry
>
> --
>
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
> *From:*public-iri-request@w3.org [mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Shawn Steele
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2011 12:20 PM
> *To:* Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin; Matitiahu Allouche
> *Cc:* bidi@unicode.org; bidi-bounce@unicode.org; Mark Davis ☕; Mohamed 
> Mohie; public-iri@w3.org; public-iri-request@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: [bidi] BIDI?
>
> I think that the "side of a bus" case often skips the http:// part, so 
> it does matter a bit.
>
> FWIW: I don't think we have to worry about this case so much:
>
> http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/05/6789539-amid-the-ruins-a-fisherman-contemplates-a-daunting-future
>
> but rather simpler cases like "msnbc.com", "biz.host.com", or 
> "host.com/biz", since that's what's on the side of a bus.  And, of 
> course, the email variations.
>
> I don't know if that "simplifies" the problem any, but a few RTL 
> characters deep in an obscure file path in an otherwise LTR string 
> probably aren't very interesting.
>
> Also, ancedotal evidence suggests that the "average" user may not be 
> aware that www.msnbc.com <http://www.msnbc.com> means "the www server 
> at msnbc, which registered with .com".  It can be misinterpreted as 
> "msnbc's part of the web (www)", eg, msnbc somehow registered with 
> www.  So I don't think we can ensure that LTR or RTL ordering 
> preserves some sort of security heirarchy, at least for the average user.
>
> I think the key point is "how do we get someone to write it down and 
> key it in later without any mistakes"?
>
> -Shawn
>
>  
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin [aharon@google.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:07 AM
> *To:* Matitiahu Allouche
> *Cc:* bidi@unicode.org; bidi-bounce@unicode.org; Mark Davis ☕; Mohamed 
> Mohie; public-iri@w3.org; public-iri-request@w3.org; Shawn Steele
> *Subject:* Re: [bidi] BIDI?
>
> You have a point, although for http://MY.DOMAIN.org and 
> http://org.DOMAIN.MY, the results would be different:
>
> org.NIAMOD.YM//:http and http://org.NIAMOD.YM, respectively.
>
> Aharon
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com 
> <mailto:matial@il.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote: "To my taste, first strong in the 
> domain name is best".
> First strong in the domain name fails the napkin test. If the logical 
> name is (upper case = RTL):
> MY.DOMAIN.org <http://MY.DOMAIN.org>
> it would be displayed
>       org.NIAMOD.YM
>
> Such a display could come from the logical name "MY.DOMAIN.org 
> <http://MY.DOMAIN.org>", but also from "org.MY.DOMAIN", thus it is not 
> unambiguous.
>
>
> Shalom (Regards),  Mati
>
>
>
> From: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com 
> <mailto:aharon@google.com>>
>
> To: Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM@IBMIL
>
> Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>>, bidi@unicode.org 
> <mailto:bidi@unicode.org>, bidi-bounce@unicode.org 
> <mailto:bidi-bounce@unicode.org>, "public-iri@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>" <public-iri@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>>, Mohamed Mohie <MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com 
> <mailto:MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com>>, public-iri-request@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri-request@w3.org>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com 
> <mailto:mark@macchiato.com>>
> Date: 05/06/2011 18:43
>
> Subject: Re: [bidi] Re: BIDI?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> I think that there needs to be a secondary objective: to get all-rtl 
> iris displayed rtl overall, not in a constant back-and-forth at every 
> separator. Like Mohammed, I think that this should be based on the 
> presence of rtl in the domain name. To my taste, first strong in the 
> domain name is best, but I think that the exact algorithm to use (on 
> the domain name) is less important.
>
> Aharon
>
> On Jun 5, 2011 10:27 AM, "Matitiahu Allouche" <matial@il.ibm.com 
> <mailto:matial@il.ibm.com>> wrote:
> > 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 <tel:%2B972%202%205870333> Mobile: +972 52 
> 2554160 <tel:%2B972%2052%202554160>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mohamed Mohie <MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com <mailto:MOHIEM@eg.ibm.com>>
> > To: Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM@IBMIL
> > Cc: bidi@unicode.org <mailto:bidi@unicode.org>, 
> bidi-bounce@unicode.org <mailto:bidi-bounce@unicode.org>, Mark Davis ☕
> > <mark@macchiato.com <mailto:mark@macchiato.com>>, "public-iri@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>" <public-iri@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>>, Shawn
> > Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com <mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>>
> > Date: 03/06/2011 22:06
> > Subject: Re: [bidi] Re: BIDI?
> > Sent by: public-iri-request@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mohiem@eg.ibm.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com <mailto:matial@il.ibm.com>>
> > To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com <mailto:mark@macchiato.com>>
> > Cc: bidi@unicode.org <mailto:bidi@unicode.org>, 
> bidi-bounce@unicode.org <mailto:bidi-bounce@unicode.org>, 
> "public-iri@w3.org <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>"
> > <public-iri@w3.org <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>>, Shawn Steele 
> <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com <mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>>
> > Date: 27/04/2011 10:38 ص
> > Subject: [bidi] Re: BIDI?
> > Sent by: bidi-bounce@unicode.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <tel:%2B972%202%205870333> Mobile: +972 52 
> 2554160 <tel:%2B972%2052%202554160>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com <mailto:mark@macchiato.com>>
> > To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>>
> > Cc: "public-iri@w3.org <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>" <public-iri@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-iri@w3.org>>, bidi@unicode.org <mailto:bidi@unicode.org>
> > Date: 27/04/2011 02:24
> > Subject: [bidi] Re: BIDI?
> > Sent by: bidi-bounce@unicode.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------

Adil Allawi
Diwan Software Ltd.
37-39 Peckham Road,
London SE5 8UH, U.K.

Mobile: +44 (0)7718 785 850
mailto:adil@diwan.com
http://www.diwan.com/