WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

[Mark Davis]

Of course we should allow for trailing combining marks.

The reason that the trailing combining marks were forbidden earlier was
because of the defective IDNA2003 bidi restrictions, which allowed labels
that shouldn't have been allowed, and disallowed labels that should have
been. So I was including both that under the phrase "better". The latter
part is also covered by the next bullet (about effective use).

So I don't think we need the bullet about "mnemonics" -- it just confuses
the issue.

Mark

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, 27 February, 2008 10:07 -0800 Mark Davis
> <mark.davis at unicode.org> wrote:
>
> > So my suggestion would be to replace the above two bullets
> > with:
> >
> > - Revise the restrictions on labels to provide for better
> > visual disambiguation in the cases where characters would be
> > subject to bidirectional reordering.
>
> Mark,
>
> I assume that the "additional mnemonics" text was intended to
> permit the modifications that started the IDNA bidi discussions,
> i.e., to permit trailing combining marks so as to make mnemonics
> based on Dhivehi, a larger number of mnemonics based on Yiddish,
> etc., possible.  If the work were confined to "visual
> disambiguation", as you seem to suggest above, that change would
> be excluded.  Is that what you have in mind?
>
>    john
>
>


-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080227/0221673a/attachment.html