On 10/9/13 3:02 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2013/10/09 5:55, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 9/11/13 8:06 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > >>> Reviewed the draft, think the approach is good. Just one minor comment. >>> >>> Same as Florian, had the 'hmm' reaction when reading about >>> directionality and application behaviour at Section 3.1. It seems that >>> the only application behaviour is permitted pattern. It doesn't deal >>> with visual appearance I believed. Maybe replace 'application >>> behaviour' with 'permitted patther of the string' (or 'allowed >>> combination of the string')? >> >> Hmm, I see why you and Florian don't like that text. :-) >> >> How about this? >> >> OLD >> Directionality: defines application behavior in the presence of code >> points that have directionality, in particular right-to-left code >> points as defined in the Unicode database (see [UAX9]). >> >> NEW >> Directionality: defines which strings are to be considered >> left-to-right (LTR) and right-to-left (RTL), and the allowable >> sequences of characters in LTR and RTL strings. > > That may be an improvement, but it's missing the fact that LTR and RTL > strings are the only two alternatives allowed.
I think that's a good thing. We're not allowing mixed-direction strings. > Also, it would be good to somewhere say that there is currently no > widely accepted and implemented solution for the display of constructs > with mixed pieces (e.g. domain names with LTR and RTL components > (labels), because the problem is inherently extremely hard. Yes, which is why we don't allow those. Let's add a note about that. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
