Protocol-08 (and status of Defs-04 and Rationale-06)

Erik van der Poel erikv at google.com
Tue Dec 9 15:41:23 CET 2008


Harald and I did exhaustive tests using two different implementations
of the bidi algorithm (he used his own, I used ICU for C/C++). We
found that without that rule, you'd get the kind of behavior that we
don't want. See Label Uniqueness and Character Grouping in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-03#section-3

Erik

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
>
>
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>>>           Alright, that is what has been proposed so far. *But* we
>>>> now need
>>>> to take into account Harald's reminder that some combinations
>>>> are already disallowed separately by the bidi rules on label
>>>> well-formedness, quite independently of any consideration of
>>>> CONTEXTO categorization. What the bidi rules require of label
>>>> formation is:
>>>>
>>>> Bidi:     Forbid (d) and (f) [and (g) by corollary]. Allow (e).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you point out the lines in bidi you are referring to here?
>>>
>>>
>> Section 2 rule 5:
>>
>>   5.  If an EN is present, no AN may be present, and vice versa.
>>
>>
>>                      Harald
>
> Thank you. I thought that was the case. Now where is the rational for
> the rule?
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>


More information about the Idna-update mailing list