|
| 1 | +# Bidi Usability |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +Status: **Proposed** |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +<details> |
| 6 | + <summary>Metadata</summary> |
| 7 | + <dl> |
| 8 | + <dt>Contributors</dt> |
| 9 | + <dd>@aphillips</dd> |
| 10 | + <dt>First proposed</dt> |
| 11 | + <dd>2024-03-27</dd> |
| 12 | + <dt>Pull Requests</dt> |
| 13 | + <dd>#000</dd> |
| 14 | + </dl> |
| 15 | +</details> |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +## Objective |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +_What is this proposal trying to achieve?_ |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +The MessageFormat v2 syntax uses whitespace as a required delimiter |
| 22 | +as well as permitting the use of whitespace to make _messages_ easier to read. |
| 23 | +In addition, a _message_ can include bidirectional text in identifiers and literal values. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +MessageFormat's syntax also uses a variety of "sigils" and markers to form the structure of a _message_. |
| 26 | +These sigils are ASCII punctuation characters that have neutral directionality. |
| 27 | +This means that the inclusion of right-to-left ("RTL") identifiers or literals in a _message_ |
| 28 | +can result in the syntax looking "scrambled" or, in extreme cases, appearing to have a different meaning |
| 29 | +due to [spillover](https://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-glossary/#dfn-spillover-effects). |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +To prevent spillover effects and to allow users (particularly RTL language users) |
| 32 | +to author _messages_ in a straightforward way, we want to allow the syntax to include appropriate |
| 33 | +bidirectional support and to recommend to tool and translation technology implementers |
| 34 | +mechanisms to make _messages_ that include RTL characters easy to work with |
| 35 | +without introducing spoofing or "Trojan Source" attack vectors. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## Background |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +_What context is helpful to understand this proposal?_ |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +If you are unfamiliar with bidirectional or right-to-left text, there is a basic introduction |
| 42 | +[here](https://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/uba-basics). |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +## Use-Cases |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +_What use-cases do we see? Ideally, quote concrete examples._ |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +## Requirements |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +_What properties does the solution have to manifest to enable the use-cases above?_ |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +To prevent RTL _literals_ from having spillover effects with surrounding syntax, |
| 53 | +it should be possible to bidi isolate a _quoted_ or _unquoted_ _literal_. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +To prevent _patterns_ from having spillover effects with other parts of a _message_, |
| 56 | +particularly with _keys_ in a _variant_, |
| 57 | +it should be possible to bidi isolate a _quoted-pattern_. |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +To prevent _placeholders_ or _expressions_ from having spillover effects with other parts of a _message_ |
| 60 | +it should be possible to bidi isolate the contents of an _expression_. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +To prevent RTL identifiers from having spillover effects with other parts of an _expression_, |
| 63 | +it should be possible to include "local effect" bidi controls following an _identifier_, |
| 64 | +_name_, |
| 65 | +_option value_, |
| 66 | +or _literal_. |
| 67 | +These controls must not be included into the _identifier_, _name_, _option value_, or _literal_, |
| 68 | +that is, it must be possible to distinguish these characters from the value in question. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +## Constraints |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +_What prior decisions and existing conditions limit the possible design?_ |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +Users cannot be expected to create or manage bidirectional controls or |
| 75 | +marks in _messages_, since the characters are invisible and can be difficult |
| 76 | +to manage. |
| 77 | +Tools (such as resource editors or translation editors) |
| 78 | +and other implementations of MessageFormat 2 serialization are strongly |
| 79 | +encouraged to provide paired isolates around any right-to-left |
| 80 | +syntax as described in this design so that _messages_ display appropriately as plain text. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +## Proposed Design |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +_Describe the proposed solution. Consider syntax, formatting, errors, registry, tooling, interchange._ |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +## Alternatives Considered |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +_What other solutions are available?_ |
| 89 | +_How do they compare against the requirements?_ |
| 90 | +_What other properties they have?_ |
0 commit comments