[iri] #117: conformance requirements in bidi document -- do they belong?

[iri issue tracker]

#117: conformance requirements in bidi document -- do they belong?

The document says "Bidirectional IRIs MUST be rendered by using the
Unicode Bidi IRIs MUST be visually ordered by the Unicode Bidirectional
Bidirectional Algorithm [UNIV6], [UNI9]."

There was significant discussion on the working group mailing list that
this advice should not be normative. If it is normative, it isn't clear
about to whom it applies -- who must do what kind of rendering? And if you
just leave off the "http://" in the first place, is what you're rendering
an IRI or something else?

What is the consequence of not following this bit of advice anyway?
--
------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: masinter@… | Owner: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 3987bis | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
------------------------+--------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/117>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[iri issue tracker]

#117: conformance requirements in bidi document -- do they belong?

Post by iri issue tracker
The document says "Bidirectional IRIs MUST be rendered by using the

Unicode Bidi IRIs MUST be visually ordered by the Unicode Bidirectional
Bidirectional Algorithm [UNIV6], [UNI9]."

This isn't the relevant bit of text, because rendering by the Bidi
algorithm isn't the issue, it's what context or additional tweaks should
be allowed (or not)

Post by iri issue tracker
There was significant discussion on the working group mailing list that

this advice should not be normative.

It's not about being normative or not. It's about whether another way of
rendering, or several ways of rendering, should be allowed.

Post by iri issue tracker
What is the consequence of not following this bit of advice anyway?

The consequence is that bidi IRIs get garbled; components get moved
around, and users get confused. Maybe to some extent unavoidable, but
definitely not a good thing.
--
------------------------+---------------------------------------
Reporter: masinter@… | Owner: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 3987bis | Version:
Severity: - | Resolution:
Keywords: |
------------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/117#comment:1>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[iri issue tracker]

#117: conformance requirements in bidi document -- do they belong?

Changes (by adil@…):

* keywords: => bidi
* owner: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@… => adil@…
* status: new => assigned
--
------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: masinter@… | Owner: adil@…
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 3987bis | Version:
Severity: - | Resolution:
Keywords: bidi |
------------------------+-----------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/117#comment:2>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[iri issue tracker]

#117: conformance requirements in bidi document -- do they belong?

Changes (by adil@…):

* component: 3987bis => bidi-guidelines
--
-----------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: masinter@… | Owner: adil@…
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: bidi-guidelines | Version:
Severity: - | Resolution:
Keywords: bidi |
-----------------------------+-----------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/117#comment:3>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>