Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir | 21 Jun 07:55 2011
Picon

mixing different direction labels within same domain

Dear all,

I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case:

<r2l chars><num1>.<num2>.<etc ..>

As you know in case r2l labels the display will be like this

<etc..>.<num1>.<num2><r2l chars>

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 the

   Unicode bidirectional algorithm.

 

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

      L4.R3.R2.L1)

 

 

 

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

 

http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/idna.jsp?a=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#notes

http://mct.verisign-grs.com/conversiontool/convertServlet?input=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9&type=UTF8

 

 

Abdulrahman,

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

Gmane