comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Thu Feb 12 22:16:23 CET 2009



--On Friday, February 13, 2009 00:23 +0330 Alireza Saleh
<saleh at nic.ir> wrote:

> I didn't mean to say that your rules are not suffiecient, what
> I'm  trying to say is that both your suggested restrictions
> and the current  bidi restrictions are much more that required
> fo limited number of  scripts which going to be supported by a
> single TLD, however by having  very restrictive rules the
> possibility of happening the visual confusion  exists. I'm
> trying to say that the rules for preventing visual  confusions
> can be defined by TLD such as other policies because any 
> introduced  IDN TLD is going to support limited number of
> scripts and  languages. For example if you see
> الف۱۲۳.ایران and الف١٢٣.ایران you 
> cannot tell which Arabic number set has been used according to
> the  protocol but the TLD should clarify it.
> So now that this clarifications are required by TLD, why we
> cannot trust  the registry to define all clarifications for
> supporting scripts and  languages.

Alireza,

As you work through these cases, please do remember that we
assume that all domains that are truly "generic" and/or "global"
with regard to registrations are likely to end up needing to
support _all_ scripts and mnemonics derived from all languages.
Certainly most of the existing gTLDs fall into that category as
do those ccTLDs that have concluded that it is in their interest
to encourage registrations from anyone with money.

At least for those domains, basing rules on the assumption that
a given TLD and its subdomains will be supporting only a very
limited number of scripts (or a very narrow range of characters)
is probably unreasonable.

     john






More information about the Idna-update mailing list