comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Aug 6 12:18:31 CEST 2009
When integrating comments into text, some additional notes....
>> 12) The next sentence says: "In a domain name consisting of only
>> LDH-labels and labels that pass the test, the requirements of Section
>> 3 are satisfied as long as a label that starts with an ASCII digit
>> does not come after a right-to-left label that ends in a digit."
>> This is not true. See example b above.
> You are right. This needs to be documented; I did not test this case.
I changed the sentence to say "the requirements of Section
3 are satisfied as long as a label that starts with an ASCII digit
does not come after a right-to-left label" - I think this is true for all cases.
>> 13) In section 3, there appears the sentence: "the label "123-456"
>> will have a different display order in an RTL context than in a LTR
>> This is not true, IMHO. If the last letter before the label is not an
>> Arabic Letter, it will be displayed as "123-456" both in LTR and RTL
>> context. If it is an Arabic Letter, it will be displayed as "456-123".
> I will have to test this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Hm. When I looked at my code, I even had a test for this case, and you
However, I think I found the example I was trying to reconstruct - the
label (network order)
"12-a" will display as "12-a" in LTR, and "a-12" in RTL. This, however,
is already a non-permitted label.
>> 14) In section 3, there appears the sentence: "The Label Uniqueness
>> property should hold true between LTR paragraphs and RTL paragraphs.
>> This was shown to be unsound."
>> In fact, in all cases where Character Grouping and Label Uniqueness
>> are satisfied for each paragraph direction separately, there will be
>> Label Uniqueness between LTR and RTL paragraphs.
> I will have to test this. I think a fairly common case was found (ALEPH
> 1 / 1 ALEPH comes to mind, but 1 ALEPH is disallowed). Since this was
> ruled out of context early on, I don't think either my code or Erik's
> code checks for this at the moment.
After contemplating this for a while, I'm deleting the paragraph.
I'm also putting in the rules you suggested in a later message.
More information about the Idna-update