CONTEXTO Proposal
Alireza Saleh
saleh at nic.ir
Mon Jul 20 23:22:46 CEST 2009
I don't agree.
Prohibit mixing btween numbers was proposed just because the BIDI
properties of ASCII digits and Extend Arabic-Indic digits are EN and is
different than Arabic digits which is AN . I really don't know why now
your are proposing that 2 different digit sets with same BIDI
properties and complete different shapes should be prohibited from being
co-exist in the label ?
Besides, Removing the EN,AN mixing prohibitions will be a very good move
because the JAWI script can have their reduplication words. in Jawi
script the functionally of Arabic digit 2 is like alphabets and it must
be written complete the meaning of the word. E.g : rama٢ means
butterfly. they are using ASCII digits for writing the numbers.
This restriction was added to the IDNA-BIDI document because it
violates the label uniqueness condition however I think 1) After fixing
the UNICODE TR-9 report there won't be any problem with that and 2) the
label uniqueness can be also violated as long as we have homographs
but I don't know why the document says that labels must look
different than another label by re-ordering the characters but two
labels can have the exact same look even by having different characters.
Alireza
> B. ARABIC-INDIC DIGITS
>
> The rule on these overlaps with Bidi, and would be simpler and more
> appropriately moved there, since these are all only of concern with
> Bidi processing. So remove:
>
> * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables#appendix-A.13
> * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables#appendix-A.14
>
> And change BIDI from:
>
> 5. If an EN is present, no AN may be present, and vice versa.
>
> To:
>
> 5. If an EN is present, no AN or EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC digit
> (U+0660..U+0669) may be present. If an AN is present, no EXTENDED
> ARABIC-INDIC digit (U+0660..U+0669) may be present.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list