<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Harald Tveit Alvestrand </b></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> asked:</font>
<br><tt><font size=2>I have now implemented this algorithm (proposed by
Matitiahu Allouche) and compared the <br>
result for the "Character Grouping Requirement" up to a length
of 3 characters ...<br>
The difference between the two algorithms seems to be that your proposal
allows CS and ET within a label, but not at the ends. Was this an intentional
difference?</font></tt><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<end of quote><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My answer is: Yes! CS and ET,
when not at the ends of a label, do not violate any principle.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Shalom (Regards), Mati<br>
Bidi Architect<br>
Globalization Center Of Competency
- Bidirectional Scripts<br>
IBM Israel<br>
Phone: +972 2 5888802 Fax:
+972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no></b> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/08/2009 14:34</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM@IBMIL</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">idna-update@alvestrand.no</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Matitiahu Allouche skrev:<br>
> In my previous suggestions, I did not take in consideration that the
rules <br>
> are meant to codify also labels which do not contain any RTL characters.
<br>
> Having understood that, here is an updated version of my suggestions:<br>
><br>
> Definitions:<br>
><br>
> 1. Bidi domain names are domain names which include at least one RTL
<br>
> label.<br>
><br>
> 2. A RTL label is a label which contains at least one character of
type R <br>
> or AL or AN.<br>
><br>
> Rules for RTL labels in Bidi domain names:<br>
><br>
> 1. Only characters with the BIDI properties R,
AL, AN, EN, ES,<br>
> CS, ET, ON, BN and NSM are allowed in RTL
labels.<br>
><br>
> 2. The first position must be a character with
Bidi property R or AL.<br>
><br>
> 3. The last position must be a character with Bidi
property R, AL, EN<br>
> or AN, followed by zero or more NSM.<br>
><br>
> 4. If an EN is present, no AN may be present, and
vice versa.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Rules for non-RTL labels in Bidi domain names:<br>
><br>
> 1. Only characters with the BIDI properties L,
EN, ES,<br>
> CS, ET, ON and NSM are allowed in non-RTL
labels.<br>
><br>
> 2. The first position must be a character with
Bidi property L.<br>
><br>
> 3. The last position must be a character with Bidi
property L or EN,<br>
> followed by zero or more NSM, or the two
last positions must be <br>
> EN followed by ET.<br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
Thank you again - I have now implemented this algorithm and compared the
<br>
result for the "Character Grouping Requirement" up to a length
of 3 <br>
characters (my perl code is chugging on longer strings as we speak).<br>
<br>
I hope Erik can take a look at the "Label Uniqueness Requirement",
which <br>
I don't have code to test for.<br>
<br>
The difference between the two algorithms seems to be that your proposal
<br>
allows CS and ET within a label, but not at the ends. Was this an <br>
intentional difference?<br>
<br>
Harald<br>
</font></tt>