RTL labels and numbers?

[Matitiahu Allouche]

Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:
<quote>
Why permitting done on the protocol level ? shouldn’t this be done at 
registry level?
 Ex. If someone wants to register 3COM (COM is a RTL word) registry will 
register 3COM for him/her and  will lock COM3.
At least this will give users the choice for picking not forcing them on 
one type?
<end of quote>

There is another problem with "3COM" (where COM are RTL letters): if 
preceded by a LTR label and displayed in an RTL context, the result will 
be very confusing.  For instance, the string (in network order) 
      support.3COM.net
will be displayed as
      net.MOCsupport.3


Shalom (Regards),  Mati
           Bidi Architect
           Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts
           IBM Israel
           Phone: +972 2 5888802    Fax: +972 2 5870333    Mobile: +972 52 
2554160




From:
"Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir" <aghadir at citc.gov.sa>
To:
<idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Date:
13/10/2009 10:16
Subject:
RTL labels and numbers?
Sent by:
idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no



Hello,
Well while I was reading draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt I found this:
 
“4.3.  Strings with numbers
 
   By requiring that the first or last character of a string be category
   R or AL, RFC 3454 prohibited a string containing right-to-left
   characters from ending with a number.
 
   Consider the strings ALEF 5 (HEBREW LETTER ALEF + DIGIT FIVE) and 5
   ALEF.  Displayed in an LTR context, the first one will be displayed
   from left to right as 5 ALEF (with the 5 being considered right-to-
   left because of the leading ALEF), while 5 ALEF will be displayed in
   exactly the same order (5 taking the direction from context).
   Clearly, only one of those should be permitted as a registered label,
   but barring them both seems unnecessary.”
 
Why permitting done on the protocol level ? shouldn’t this be done at 
registry level?
 
Ex. If someone wants to register 3COM (COM is a RTL word) registry will 
register 3COM for him/her and  will lock COM3.
At least this will give users the choice for picking not forcing them on 
one type?
 
Thank you,
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091013/b55044af/attachment.htm