Protocol Action: 'Right-to-left scripts for IDNA' to Proposed Standard

[Vint Cerf]

I am afraid that even UAX#9 will not solve the problem of random  
arbitrary text that is intended to be a domain name but which is not  
found in a context that allows reliable identification as such.

vint


On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Well as we know the IDNA protocol didn't adapt bidi algorithm (UAX  
> #9) fully. They disallowed all bidi markers (LRM,RLM,...) which are  
> they used to solve problems from this kind.
>
> So, what can be done?
> 1) adapt or create new algorithm in IDNA protocol to solve this  
> issue (doubt it).
> 2) make all hyper links to be treated in special way rather using  
> UAX#9 (application wise possible).
> 3) enhance the existent bidi algorithm by adding new rules to  
> support hyperlinks (possible).
>
> Thank you,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> ] On Behalf Of Slim Amamou
> Sent: 12/Feb/2010 1:58 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: Internet Architecture Board; idnabis mailing list; idnabis  
> chair; IETF-Announce; RFC Editor
> Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Right-to-left scripts for IDNA' to  
> Proposed Standard
>
> hi,
>
> In section 3
>>
>> 3. The requirement set for the BIDI rule
>> (...)
>>
>> All the text in this document assumes that text containing the labels
>> under consideration will be displayed using the Unicode bidirectional
>> algorithm [UAX9].
>> (...)
>>   Several stronger statements were considered and rejected, because
>>   they seem to be impossible to fulfil within the constraints of the
>>   Unicode bidirectional algorithm.  These include:
>> (...)
>>
>> 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.R2.R3.L4 will be displayed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in
>> an LTR context. (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as
>> L4.R3.R2.L1).
>
> Displaying L1.R2.R3.L4 as L1.R3.R2.L4 in an LTR context is really
> confusing because it breaks the logical aspect and the implied
> hierarchy of domain names. Furthermore, it makes the domain names
> unnecessarily inconsistent with original design of DNS with respect to
> RFC1034. I understand that this is in compliance with UAX9 and is
> related to the statement :
>
>> All the text in this document assumes that text containing the labels
>> under consideration will be displayed using the Unicode bidirectional
>> algorithm [UAX9].
>
> But why use UAX9 for "text containing the labels"? why not only for  
> labels?
>
> -- 
> Slim Amamou | سليم عمامو
> http://alixsys.com
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update