mixing different direction labels within same domain

Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir aghadir at citc.gov.sa
Wed Aug 10 10:44:54 CEST 2011

Dear JFC,
Thank you for letting me in this I'll try to gather most of pointed issues in IDNA and I'll try to send to you later hopefully!

But have ever seen this proposed solution on improving the display of URI?
This solution has been pended waiting for any feeds on it so that they can publish it, and I think this solution will solve most of confusing problems in the display, yet it'll give us defending points on removing some limitations  in the IDNA (hopefully!).


From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin
Sent: 8/Aug/2011 3:57 PM
To: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir; Slim Amamou
Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org; idna-update at alvestrand.no work; iucg at ietf.org; Arabic Scripts IDNA
Subject: Re: mixing different direction labels within same domain

Dear Abdulrahman, dear Slim,

we try to consolidate all the post-IDNA2008 points that are now to be addressed at Internet technology level (including those with an impact on the protocols but belonging to the architectural level that we plan to consolidate further on). This mostly concerns inputs from IANA, IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, ITU, John Klensin, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Hoffman, Vint Cerf, etc. The target is to help them all to consistently work in being aware of all the issues and in using the same terms with the same meaning.

The current version of this compilation is at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

Once we have compiled all the potocol level issues we will propose all the concerned parties to consolidate them into a common Draft to everyone's benefit and for us to complete the design of an ML-DNS prototype implementation, i.e. a multi-layer, multi-prupose (intertechnology), multi-orthotypography IDNA2008 conformant  front-end of the IDNA2008 stabilised Internet DNS.

Among the points we noted there is the Bidi issue http://iucg.org/wiki/Bidi_discussion that you raised on 2/14/2010. Harald's response is at the IDNA2008 level (on the Internet side). The question now is to know how to address it at the use level: I would be interested in a description of the problem which could permit a solution at protocol, use or architural level.

I thank you if you can help us.

At 22:55 07/08/2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

On 06/21/11 07:55, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:

Dear all,
I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case:
<r2l chars><num1>.<num2>.<etc ..>
This particular case has all labels legal, but the overall display name will display very oddly (as noted). The oddity is caused by our inability to mandate whole-domain tests, as described in the RFC.

It is logical for the administrator of <etc ..> to forbid registration of leading-numeric labels if it anticipates R2L labels at the next level down, and it is logical for application writers to simply reject such names because they are going to confuse the users (much in the spirit of Firefox' refusal to do mixed-script names), but the RFC does not require them to do so.

As you know in case r2l labels the display will be like this
<etc..>.<num1>.<num2><r2l chars>
I think the display will depend on the direction of <etc> and whether it is in an RTL context or an LTR context, but I'm still not confident of my ability to execute the BIDI algorithm in my head.

As you see both of them have different display order which isn?t  the same as network order.
And I know it is mentioned in the RFC

   Several stronger statements were considered and

rejected, because

   they seem to be impossible to fulfill within the

constraints of


   Unicode bidirectional


And one of the statement is

  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

And I have tried two implemented tools (well I don?t know if they follow the RFC fully or not).





Idna-update mailing list

Idna-update at alvestrand.no<mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>



Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20110810/493ccaa5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Idna-update mailing list