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

Patrik Fältström patrik at
Mon Feb 15 20:16:56 CET 2010

On 15 feb 2010, at 18.54, Slim Amamou wrote:

> My opinion is :
> - there should be no collision between domain names in RTL and LTR
> contexts (In the current draft L1.R2.R3.L4 in LTR context and
> L1.R3.R2.L4 in RTL context are displayed the same)

This is not possible to achieve as we have a requirement that the domain names are to always be passed around in logical order, as we do not know what (in free flowing text for example) what is the beginning and end of a domain name.

And, this is one of the reasons various recommendations say that one should not mix RTL and LTR in domain names, labels etc. If you do not mix directionality, you will not get any problems, right?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list