[Bidi] Internationalized Resource Identifires (IRI)
cben at users.sf.net
Fri Aug 20 07:31:29 PDT 2004
Behnam Esfahbod wrote:
> Hi list,
> You may be interested in bidi-related issues in this page:
From that page:
> Bidirectional IRIs MUST be rendered in the same way as they would be
> rendered if they were in an left-to-right embedding
And how do they suggest to handle an RTL sentence containing an IRI?
Sure, an embedding is needed but frequently it will not be there. In
pratice IRIs *are* going to be displayed RTL from time to time. I hope
they are aware that any security issues resulting from this are going to
> The Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm ([UNI9]Davis, M., The
> Bidirectional Algorithm, March 2004., Section 4.3) permits
> higher-level protocols to influence bidirectional rendering. Such
> changes by higher-level protocols MUST NOT be used if they change the
> rendering of IRIs.
I don't think this clause is useful or implementable. Use cases for
changing IRI rendering [with higher-level protocols]:
- Texts like their Bidi Examples page which deliberately change
rendering of IRIs in order to *talk about* IRI bidi. It is useful to
always be able to override bidi defaults, even sensible ones. That
page uses <span dir="..."> and <bdo dir="...">. It could have used
Unicode control chars if it was in plain text. In that case, this
clause doesn't apply and the chars are permitted to change the
rendering -- why the inconsistensy?!?
- Conversion of a text document to a higher-level format would (if
done properly) turn Unicode control codes to higher-level codes.
Why is this supposed
- Forcing path components to LTR order. The fact that
``foo/BAR/BAZ/quux`` is rendered as ``foo/ZAB/ZAR/quux`` _
is an unfortunate consequence of the UBA. I don't think that
anyone should be prohibited from fixing the display (in a specific
document, in a program for all IRIs it displays or in a future version
of this standard...).
I don't think that disallowing overriding for IRIs (or anything) is
useful. I don't think that disallowing
..  Things would be a lot clearer if the shash (^H^H SOLIDUS ;-))
was a mirrored character. It is true that the current tradition for
Hebrew (that's what I know) does not reverse the slash but I think
this tradition is broken ;-). ``foo/ZAB\ZAR/quux`` would be much
less ambiguos. So would be division: ``OITAR ESION\LANGIS``. The
only missing part would be a way to mirror the minus sign ;-).
Beni Cherniavsky <cben at users.sf.net>
Note: I can only read email on week-ends...
More information about the bidi