RTL labels and numbers?

Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir aghadir at citc.gov.sa
Wed Oct 14 07:14:15 CEST 2009


>In addition, the argument in this case was that the numbers had a
>tendency to jump across the label separator, so that _no_ registry
This is the normal behavior of the bidi algorithm so nothing is wrong
here (well if you are a RTL user)
So what if the numbers jumped as you stated (in float point case) 
Ex. 
A domain which has this network order :
A5.3B (where A and B are RTL characters)
Will have this display order:
B5.3A
And so this is backward because bidi algorithm doesn't identify domains
as the draft stated. and this case abnormal case for (LTR users) is
considered as normal for (RTL users).
 
>could actually exert proper control over how this would work (the
>parent could redelegate via DNAME without telling the child, and the
>child could do something surprising that would affect display from an
>otherwise-properly delegated name from the parent).  Because of this
>natural tendency to involve other labels, and becauset he only
>practical tests are intra-label and not inter-label, at least some of
>us argued that the best guide was prudence.  Therefore, the stricter
>rule was put in place.  (Otherwise, I also would have argued "registry
>policy".)

Thank you,
Abdulrahman.
-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: 13/Oct/2009 5:54 PM
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: RTL labels and numbers?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:05:54AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> for the most part, the IDNA2008 specification does place a great deal
of 
> responsibility on
> the registry but for some cases, it was considered important to bar  
> particularly confusing
> situations at the protocol level. This was debated substantially
during 
> the course of the
> development of IDNA2008.
>

In addition, the argument in this case was that the numbers had a
tendency to jump across the label separator, so that _no_ registry
could actually exert proper control over how this would work (the
parent could redelegate via DNAME without telling the child, and the
child could do something surprising that would affect display from an
otherwise-properly delegated name from the parent).  Because of this
natural tendency to involve other labels, and becauset he only
practical tests are intra-label and not inter-label, at least some of
us argued that the best guide was prudence.  Therefore, the stricter
rule was put in place.  (Otherwise, I also would have argued "registry
policy".)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.



More information about the Idna-update mailing list