Re: [iri] #121: BIDI: Some users are requiring right-to-left label ordering.

Hello Slim,

On 2012/03/30 0:31, Slim Amamou wrote:
> I support this view. I'd add that It's acceptable for me if the LTR
> order for the components is enforced on IRIs. The other solution is to
> state in the RFC that every IRI spec MUST define an overall ordering
> for the components either LTR or RTL.

What do you mean by "every IRI spec"? There is only one IRI spec. 
Currently, it's RFC 3987, but we are working on an update.

Regards,    Martin.

>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Shawn Steele
> <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>  wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>> Our investigation is that the parts of an IRI are treated like a list.  If I have a list like (Afra, Joe, Mary, Maysun, Mohamed, Phil), I'm not going to change the order of the list because of my language, I expect it to stay (AFRA, joe, mary, MAYSUN, MOHAMED, phil), not (AFRA, joe, mary, MOHAMED, MAYSUN, phil).  (Though I confess to mixing metaphors because I used alphabitization to sort my list and clearly in different scripts that'd be different.  I imagine I'm getting the idea across though, maybe it was an org chart that just so happens to have people arranged alphabetically by transliterated Latin name :)).
>>
>> Similarly for http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx, it's ordered something like a://b.c.d/e/f.g  -- A list can keep its order rendered as either a://b.c.d/e/f.g or g.f/e/b.c.b//:a   Which is appropriate depends on the situation, but if we start rearranging the order of the labels it gets really confusing.  At that point 99% of the populous would lose all hope of realizing there's an order to an IRI.  (Right now few people could correctly parse one anyway, but it'd get way worse).
>>
>> IMO, which way the parts are ordered is less important than the fact they're consistently ordered.
>>
>> -Shawn
>>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 08:24:36 UTC