comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi
vint at google.com
Tue Aug 4 12:23:02 CEST 2009
thanks erik that is most helpful.
any comments on the EN/CS interior question that Harald raised?
On Aug 3, 2009, at 8:25 PM, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> I have tested this new set of rules with domain names up to 9
> characters and they work for both the Label Uniqueness and Character
> Grouping requirements.
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> Matitiahu Allouche skrev:
>>> In my previous suggestions, I did not take in consideration that
>>> the rules
>>> are meant to codify also labels which do not contain any RTL
>>> Having understood that, here is an updated version of my
>>> 1. Bidi domain names are domain names which include at least one RTL
>>> 2. A RTL label is a label which contains at least one character of
>>> type R
>>> or AL or AN.
>>> Rules for RTL labels in Bidi domain names:
>>> 1. Only characters with the BIDI properties R, AL, AN, EN, ES,
>>> CS, ET, ON, BN and NSM are allowed in RTL labels.
>>> 2. The first position must be a character with Bidi property R
>>> or AL.
>>> 3. The last position must be a character with Bidi property R,
>>> AL, EN
>>> or AN, followed by zero or more NSM.
>>> 4. If an EN is present, no AN may be present, and vice versa.
>>> Rules for non-RTL labels in Bidi domain names:
>>> 1. Only characters with the BIDI properties L, EN, ES,
>>> CS, ET, ON and NSM are allowed in non-RTL labels.
>>> 2. The first position must be a character with Bidi property L.
>>> 3. The last position must be a character with Bidi property L
>>> or EN,
>>> followed by zero or more NSM, or the two last positions
>>> must be
>>> EN followed by ET.
>> Thank you again - I have now implemented this algorithm and
>> compared the
>> result for the "Character Grouping Requirement" up to a length of 3
>> characters (my perl code is chugging on longer strings as we speak).
>> I hope Erik can take a look at the "Label Uniqueness Requirement",
>> I don't have code to test for.
>> The difference between the two algorithms seems to be that your
>> allows CS and ET within a label, but not at the ends. Was this an
>> intentional difference?
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update