Protocol Action: 'Right-to-left scripts for IDNA' to Proposed Standard

[Slim Amamou]

hi,

In section 3
>
> 3. The requirement set for the BIDI rule
> (...)
>
> All the text in this document assumes that text containing the labels
> under consideration will be displayed using the Unicode bidirectional
> algorithm [UAX9].
> (...)
>    Several stronger statements were considered and rejected, because
>    they seem to be impossible to fulfil within the constraints of the
>    Unicode bidirectional algorithm.  These include:
> (...)
>
> 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.R2.R3.L4 will be displayed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in
> an LTR context. (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as
> L4.R3.R2.L1).

Displaying L1.R2.R3.L4 as L1.R3.R2.L4 in an LTR context is really
confusing because it breaks the logical aspect and the implied
hierarchy of domain names. Furthermore, it makes the domain names
unnecessarily inconsistent with original design of DNS with respect to
RFC1034. I understand that this is in compliance with UAX9 and is
related to the statement :

> All the text in this document assumes that text containing the labels
> under consideration will be displayed using the Unicode bidirectional
> algorithm [UAX9].

But why use UAX9 for "text containing the labels"? why not only for labels?

-- 
Slim Amamou | سليم عمامو
http://alixsys.com