[UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"
Dusan Stojicevic
dusan at dukes.in.rs
Tue Feb 24 08:16:10 UTC 2015
Dear all,
We have RTL problem in LTR world already. Try this.
F.E. / I will use ASCII just to make a point>
com.gmail at stojicevic.dusan
I send one email to this mail address and it gone "as usual".
After a minute, I've got a massage in attach.
So, consumer mail clients are prepared with the LTR rule: that on the
left side from "@" sign is name, and on the right side is domain name.
But, they don't check this rule.
I presume that in the RTL world, consumer mail clients do the same -
with RTL rule.
The real question is - should mail clients check this?
Regards,
Dušan
On 24.2.2015 2:17, Mark Svancarek wrote:
>
> I’ve seen some discussion activity at w3.org (as recently as last
> December https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/EAI_Address_Issues )
> but it doesn’t seem actionable. I think we’ll need to use this group
> to get all similar issues clarified and make them usable by developers.
>
> *From:*ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Don Hollander
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 4:46 PM
> *To:* Brent London
> *Cc:* ua-discuss at icann.org; Edmon Chung
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"
>
> Thanks Brent, Alireza & Edmon.
>
> This is a very interesting question of the approach that a software
> supplier might take.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> 1) Where are e-mail solution providers gathering to discuss this?
> Does a forum already exist? if not, should the UASG create one?
>
> 2) Brent: How has Gmail approached this? Ignored the dots in the
> username side of the address?
>
> I think it’s very interesting.
>
> Don
>
> On 24/02/2015, at 1:18 pm, Brent London <brentlondon at google.com
> <mailto:brentlondon at google.com>> wrote:
>
> It becomes problematic, as Edmon mentioned, when there are dots in
> both sides. It's especially confusing if both sides contain a
> string that plausibly could be a TLD:
>
> customer.care@شزذ.يثب
> <mailto:customer.care@%D8%B4%D8%B2%D8%B0.%D9%8A%D8%AB%D8%A8>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent London
>
> brentlondon at google.com <mailto:brentlondon at google.com>
>
> +1 650-214-5206
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Alireza Saleh <saleh+ua at nic.ir
> <mailto:saleh+ua at nic.ir>> wrote:
>
> There is no problem as long as the usernames starts and ends
> with a character with a property of AL (Arabic Letter), R
> (Right to left) or L (Left to right) otherwise in a LTR
> context it may jump around @ sign and make the address
> unreadable. The email address may also become unreadable in
> LTR context If the username part starts with L and ends with
> AL like :
>
> testمثال@مثال.تست
> <mailto:test%D9%85%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84@%D9%85%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84.%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA>
>
> the red part is username.
>
> -Alireza
>
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 11! :47 AM, Edmon Chung
> <edmon at registry.asia <mailto:edmon at registry.asia>> wrote:
>
>
>
> What about where the username part contains a dot or other
> separators? Is there a difference between “.” And “-“ or “_”?
>
> tld.sld at name.user <mailto: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> [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 <mailto: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@مثال.آزمایشی
> <mailto:%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85 at xn--mgbh0fb.xn--hgbk6aj7f53bba>
>
> 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:_*_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:* ua-discuss at icann.org <mailto: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_
>
> __
>
> _-Alireza_
>
> __
>
> __
>
> __
>
> _On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Mark Svancarek
> <marksv at microsoft.com <mailto: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://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://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/>
>
> 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://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/>
>
> http://*اا*1*اا*.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
> <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/>
>
>
> 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. In!
> stead 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. “www.microsoft.com
> <http://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>
>
---
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/ua-discuss/attachments/20150224/d96c821a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon at googlemail.com>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:04:19 +0000
Size: 4449
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/ua-discuss/attachments/20150224/d96c821a/AttachedMessage.mht>
More information about the UA-discuss
mailing list