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

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Dec 9 16:20:33 CET 2008


Thank you. Earlier I asked someone else about rule 4. The response was 
not so informative, could I trouble you to answer the rational question 
for that rule also?

Eric

Erik van der Poel wrote:
> 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