IDNAbis spec

[Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir]

" 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."

Well don't take my words literally L1.R1.R2.L2 was an example of case where mixing of labels with different directions will yield disorder in their appearance 
e.g. " حسني.computer.شركة" follow this case. 

AbdulRahman,

-----Original Message-----
From: Alireza Saleh [mailto:saleh at nic.ir] 
Sent: 3/Nov/2009 7:09 PM
To: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir
Cc: Lisa Dusseault; idna-update at alvestrand.no; muhtaseb at kfupm.edu.sa
Subject: Re: IDNAbis spec

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


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.