IDNAbis spec

[Alireza Saleh]

It can be considered as decoration characters if you reach to the word 
within a text or sentence, otherwise you may have different options to 
read it.
 
جَنگ
جُنگ

ُthe first one means WAR and the second means TV-Show.

I agree that out of the scope of this protocol some enhancement in 
rendering the display is required.

-Alireza

Shawn Steele wrote:
> My (Very Limited) understanding (from Arabic speaking coworkers) is that in this case the diacritics are sort of optional. Almost like how word corrects "naive" to "na�ve".
>
> My understanding is that the form with the diacritics is the formal spelling, particularly in religious texts, however apparently the words are also spelled quite commonly without the diacritics.  If that's true, then I'd suggest the registrar consider "bundling" the two forms.  Which form the organization used for reverse lookup would then be up to that organization.
>
> My coworker also made interesting observations about the address bar.  http://�.� gets displayed like �.�//:http, which is expected.  What was unexpected (to me) is that in an RTL context, my coworker would also prefer to see http://microsoft.com displayed as com.microsoft//:http.  His actual suggestion was that it be parsed by labels and then put the labels in RTL order.  FWIW: IE probably has to do something because http://a.�.com gets very ugly right now in the address bar.  
>
> I'm not sure the display is necessary for the working group to figure out, from what I can tell, the updated RFC permits appropriate strings, it's probably up to the clients to make sure they get displayed in a reasonable fashion.
>
> -Shawn
>
> ________________________________________
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] on behalf of Alireza Saleh [saleh at nic.ir]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:08 AM
> To: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir
> Cc: muhtaseb at kfupm.edu.sa; idna-update at alvestrand.no; Lisa Dusseault
> Subject: Re: IDNAbis spec
>
> Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:
>   
>> Hey,
>>
>>
>>
>> [Quote]: �what if we allow diacritics on the domain name then a domain name like
>>
>> ����������.����
>>
>> Will be different than the
>>
>> �����������.����
>>
>> Because in the second one there is a diacritic on the first letter.
>>
>> Although this diacritic is implicit in the first one.
>>
>> So this might cause a lot of problems in the domain names registration and owner claims.� [/Quote]
>>
>>
>>     
> I think this is the registry ( Zone owner ) decision to allow or deny
> the usage of certain characters including diacritics, however diacritics
> are part of the some languages. There may be characters ( not necessary
> diacritics ) in a languages that using them may cause problems, in these
> cases the registry can decide to remove those characters from the
> character repertoire for that language.
>   
>> Well this has been answered in �NSM flow?�
>>
>>
>>
>> [Quote]
>>
>>   �Moreover, for the displaying order of the labels of a domain name I have tried the following hypothetical domain names:
>>
>>
>> Husni.����.����
>> ����.����.����
>> husni.����.com
>> ����.computer.����
>> ����.����.com
>> husni.computer.����
>> husni.computer.com
>>
>> The following is an image of the network order from right to left  for Arabic of the above:
>>
>>
>> It is clear that when we use two consecutive RTL labels separated by dots and followed by one LTR label the display order does not look as it
>> should. The same is true that when we use two consecutive LTR labels separated by dots and followed by one RTL. The question is should we allow such confusion?�[/Quote]
>>
>> from draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06
>>
>> [Quote]
>>
>> �   o  The sequence of labels should be consistent with network order.
>>
>>       This proved impossible - a domain name consisting of the labels
>>
>>       (in network order) L1.R1.R2.L2 will be displayed as L1.R2.R1.L2 in
>>
>>       an LTR context.  (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as
>>
>>       L2.R2.R1.L1).�
>>
>> [/Quote]
>>
>>
>>
>> Well this problem was expected to happen, IDNA uses a UAX#9 Bidi algorithm version-like where some rules have been removed.
>>
>>     
> Which of the above examples represent L1.R1.R2.L2 ? These cases require
> inter-label checking and the working group came to the consensus that do
> not perform such tests.
>
> -- Alireza
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update