<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><quote></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Why permitting done on the protocol level
? shouldn’t this be done at registry level?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> Ex. If someone wants to register
3COM (COM is a RTL word) registry will register 3COM for him/her and will
lock COM3.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">At least this will give users the choice
for picking not forcing them on one type?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><end of quote></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> support.3COM.net</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">will be displayed as</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> net.MOCsupport.3<br>
<br>
<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><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir"
<aghadir@citc.gov.sa></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><idna-update@alvestrand.no></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">13/10/2009 10:16</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RTL labels and numbers?</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no</font></table>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Hello,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Well while I was reading draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt
I found this:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">“4.3. Strings with numbers</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> By requiring that the
first or last character of a string be category</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> R or AL, RFC 3454 prohibited
a string containing right-to-left</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> characters from ending
with a number.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> Consider the strings ALEF
5 (HEBREW LETTER ALEF + DIGIT FIVE) and 5</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> ALEF. Displayed
in an LTR context, the first one will be displayed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> from left to right as
5 ALEF (with the 5 being considered right-to-</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> left because of the leading
ALEF), while 5 ALEF will be displayed in</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> exactly the same order
(5 taking the direction from context).</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> Clearly, only one of those
should be permitted as a registered label,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"> but barring them both
seems unnecessary.”</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Why permitting done on the protocol level
? shouldn’t this be done at registry level?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Ex. If someone wants to register 3COM (COM
is a RTL word) registry will register 3COM for him/her and will lock
COM3.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">At least this will give users the choice
for picking not forcing them on one type?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Thank you,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br>