Mixing of AN and EN (Re: Protocol-08 (and status of Defs-04 and Rationale-06))

[Mark Davis]

I agree with Harald. We know what the problems are, so we'd need
compelling examples of why the exclusion is an issue.

Mark



On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:27, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
> Changing the subject when changing the subject is usually a good idea.....
>
> Alireza Saleh wrote:
>> I would sincerely like to see someone out there answer the following
>> question:
>>
>>
>> Why has the co-occurrence of AN and EN been forbidden by -bidi ? I
>> read that part of the document but didn't see anything other that
>> visual confusion or possible re-arrangement of the label as the reason. If
>> all visual confusions and character sequencing problems were solved by
>> setting this rule, then it would make sense. However, note the following
>> cases:
>>
>> 1. <ALEF>.3.com (as I stated before)
>>
> The current version of -bidi tries to say clearly that:
> - use of a label that begins with a digit will cause confusion
> - because of the interdiction against inter-label test, there is no rule
> against it
>
> Wise people will put these two things together and choose to not use
> <ALEF>.3.com.
>> 2. <U+064A><U+0627>.com ( http://www.nic.ir/Show_Text?c=%D9%8A%D8%A7&s=14&b=ffffff7f&f=01292200&t=DejaVuSans )
>>    <U+6CC><U+0627>.com ( http://www.nic.ir/Show_Text?c=%DB%8C%D8%A7&s=14&b=ffffff7f&f=01292200&t=DejaVuSans ) (visual confusion problem).
>>
> The first example is ARABIC LETTER YEH (BIDI class AL) and ARABIC LETTER
> ALEF (bidi class AL).
>
> The second example is ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH (BIDI class AL) and ARABIC
> LETTER ALEF.
>
> This definitely has nothing to do with BIDI rules, since all the letters
> are in class AL.
> But this
> How is this different from CYRILLIC LETTER A and LATIN LETTER A?
>> Will the rules solve these ? Either -bidi or Context rules? Or should the
>> registry still add further restrictions? Obviously the registry should.
>> For these reasons, we believe that the case of numerals should not be
>> treated any differently by -bidi. I think it is better to let
>> registry decide how to deal with these kinds of problems. dotIR considers
>> the possibility of having domains like <U+062C><U+06F5><U+0665>.ir . Why
>> should such a domain be banned by the protocol?
> ARABIC LETTER JEEM (AL), EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FIVE (EN),
> ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FIVE (AN).
>
>  From section 1.3.2 of "Rationale":
>
>   This distinction is important because the reasonable goal of an IDN
>   effort is not to be able to write the great Klingon (or language of
>   one's choice) novel in DNS labels but to be able to form a usefully
>   broad range of mnemonics in ways that are as natural as possible in a
>   very broad range of scripts.
>
> I know of no language / script where allowing this particular example
> necessary to "form a usefully broad range of mnemonics".
>
> We know what's wrong with it (it causes problems). I have not heard a
> compelling argument for its inclusion.
>
>                        Harald
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>