IDNAbis spec
Alireza Saleh
saleh at nic.ir
Tue Nov 3 17:08:37 CET 2009
Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
>
> [Quote]: “what if we allow diacritics on the domain name then a domain name like
>
> مايكروسوفت.شركة
>
> Will be different than the
>
> مَايكروسوفت.شركة
>
> Because in the second one there is a diacritic on the first letter.
>
> Although this diacritic is implicit in the first one.
>
> So this might cause a lot of problems in the domain names registration and owner claims.” [/Quote]
>
>
I think this is the registry ( Zone owner ) decision to allow or deny
the usage of certain characters including diacritics, however diacritics
are part of the some languages. There may be characters ( not necessary
diacritics ) in a languages that using them may cause problems, in these
cases the registry can decide to remove those characters from the
character repertoire for that language.
>
>
> Well this has been answered in “NSM flow?”
>
>
>
> [Quote]
>
> “Moreover, for the displaying order of the labels of a domain name I have tried the following hypothetical domain names:
>
>
> Husni.حاسب.شركة
> حسني.حاسب.شركة
> husni.حاسب.com
> حسني.computer.شركة
> حسني.حاسب.com
> husni.computer.شركة
> husni.computer.com
>
> The following is an image of the network order from right to left for Arabic of the above:
>
>
> It is clear that when we use two consecutive RTL labels separated by dots and followed by one LTR label the display order does not look as it
> should. The same is true that when we use two consecutive LTR labels separated by dots and followed by one RTL. The question is should we allow such confusion?”[/Quote]
>
> from draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06
>
> [Quote]
>
> “ o The sequence of labels should be consistent with network order.
>
> This proved impossible - a domain name consisting of the labels
>
> (in network order) L1.R1.R2.L2 will be displayed as L1.R2.R1.L2 in
>
> an LTR context. (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as
>
> L2.R2.R1.L1).”
>
> [/Quote]
>
>
>
> Well this problem was expected to happen, IDNA uses a UAX#9 Bidi algorithm version-like where some rules have been removed.
>
Which of the above examples represent L1.R1.R2.L2 ? These cases require
inter-label checking and the working group came to the consensus that do
not perform such tests.
-- Alireza
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list