Idna-update Digest, Vol 38, Issue 9

[Shawn Steele]

I agree.  We (microsoft) are looking into user expectations and i'd like to see this addressed in the IRI spec

- shawn

Sent from my Windows Mobile® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-request at alvestrand.no <idna-update-request at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:01 AM
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Subject: Idna-update Digest, Vol 38, Issue 9


Send Idna-update mailing list submissions to
        idna-update at alvestrand.no

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        idna-update-request at alvestrand.no

You can reach the person managing the list at
        idna-update-owner at alvestrand.no

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Idna-update digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Protocol Action: 'Right-to-left scripts for IDNA' to
      Proposed  Standard (Slim Amamou)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:57:36 +0100
From: Slim Amamou <slim at alixsys.com>
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Right-to-left scripts for IDNA' to
        Proposed        Standard
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab at iab.org>,  idnabis mailing list
        <idna-update at alvestrand.no>,    idnabis chair
        <idnabis-chairs at tools.ietf.org>,        IETF-Announce
        <ietf-announce at ietf.org>,       RFC Editor <rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID:
        <e5c98a401002120257p4b2988c8wddaf1c0350e5d56e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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 | ???? ?????
http://alixsys.com


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


End of Idna-update Digest, Vol 38, Issue 9
******************************************