[UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"

Sun Feb 22 08:17:00 UTC 2015

What about where the username part contains a dot or other separators? Is there a difference between “.” And “-“ or “_”?

tld.sld at name.user ?

tld.sld at name-user <mailto:tld.sld at name-user>  / tld.sld at user-name <mailto:tld.sld at user-name>  ?

etc.?

Edmon

From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alireza Saleh
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"

This is very interesting question. I’ve also thought about it before. This is a new topic and there is no similar experiences. I don’t have exact answer to this question but overall I think people mainly prefer the RTL version with right alignement. however the bidi property of @ allows its usage in the middle of RTL texts without creating any confusions unlike <http://>.

نام <mailto:???@????.???????> @مثال.آزمایشی

TLD.SLD at NAME <mailto:TLD.SLD at NAME> 

-Alireza

On Feb 22, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia <mailto:edmon at registry.asia> > wrote:

That applies to email (EAI) addresses as well I suppose?

Which Brent has been bringing up.

So, within a RTL context (e.g. if the user interface or other elements are RTL) one should expect

tld.domain at name.user:mailto <mailto:tld.domain at name.user:mailto> 

Is that correct Alireza?

Edmon

From:  <mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [ <mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alireza Saleh
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:54 AM
To: Mark Svancarek
Cc:  <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org> ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"

Dear Mark, 

Just a quick note about your question, it is expected the label starts from the right side of the address baar, and from right to left. So the main issue would be the alignment. Natively it should look like:

 <com.microsoft.www://http> com.microsoft.www://http

-Alireza

On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Mark Svancarek < <mailto:marksv at microsoft.com> marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:

Hi, I had some questions regarding my recent usage of the term “RTL”.  By this I mean “right to left”, a characteristic of Arabic and Hebrew.  At Microsoft we also call this “bidi” (bidirectional).

Here’s a discussion regarding RTL.  (I’ve also attached a much more detailed explanation, which includes Microsoft’s recommendations, but it’s in PowerPoint.  Hopefully you already use a compatible viewer.)

Bidi display of IRIs (URLs/URIs)

Bidirectional display of IRIs (an IRI with some Right-To-Left characters, eg: Arabic) has some odd quirks.  There’s an IETF WG working on creating an IRI RFC.  It’d be nice if we could help ensure that there were reasonable standards for the display of bidi IRIs.  The existing IRI drafts suggest using the Unicode Bidi Algorithm to display IRIs, but that has some problems.

User and government feedback indicates that our current behavior is a bit unexpected.  Currently we have some odd quirks about the display of Bidi IRIs in Microsoft.  This is just an example, other places may have different odd quirks.

Logical Order

IE with LTR context

IE with RTL context

 <http://www.microsoft.com/> http://www.microsoft.com

 <http://www.microsoft.com/> http://www.microsoft.com

 <http://www.microsoft.com/> http://www.microsoft.com

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة

 <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d

 <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d

 <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/> http://اا1اا.b2b.c3c.بب4بب

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/> http://اا1اا.b2b.c3c.بب4بب

 <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/> http://اا1اا.b2b.c3c.بب4بب

As we can see, the order of some of the elements may seem counter-intuitive.   The highlighted sections start in one direction, but then jump or rearrange direction so that the elements don’t follow the same order.

The Unicode Bidi algorithm has the idea that some characters aren’t inherently RTL or LTR.  Instead they take on the properties of the characters surrounding them.  This is why some pairs get “flipped” in the rendered order.

User Expectations

Limited usability investigations have demonstrated that users expect IRIs and other paths to be in the form of an ordered list.  The “separators” of the various fields vary, but the entire unit is treated as a list.  E.g.:  <http://www.microsoft.com/> http://www.microsoft.com is a list { “http”, “www”, “microsoft”, “com” }.  Users expect it to be rendered “in order” with the first element, then second, etc.

What is a bit unclear is exactly which direction the users expect the lists to be rendered in.  There seem to be 2 main options for what users expect:

*        Always render the path elements from Left to Right (e.g. “ <http://www.microsoft.com/> www.microsoft.com”) regardless of the script.

*        Always render the path elements from Right to Left in a Bidi context (application), e.g.: “com.microsoft.www//:http”, EVEN FOR ASCII IRIs. 

We need to confirm what the user expectations are for Bidi Display, and ensure that any edits to IETF IRI standards match those expectations.

<BiDiIRIsUC1.pptx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/ua-discuss/attachments/20150222/2cb3c8ef/attachment.html>