[UA-discuss] Mixing between RTL and LTR scripts

[Raed AlFayez]

Hi Don..

I like your idea and I can help in reviewing and may be help in drafting parts of the document.

Raed

-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Hollander
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:20 PM
To: Richard Merdinger; Andrew Sullivan; ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Mixing between RTL and LTR scripts

Thanks Rich, Andrew.


I quite like the idea of an 'informational RFC'.   I think having it in the IETF's documentation space will provide greater access to those who could find it useful.

Andrew, is this possible?   If so, how do we go about getting such underway?

And/or, should we also publishing something?  As an interim basis?  Or perhaps the TF-AIDN could?

Raed: Would you be willing to drive this?

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Richard Merdinger
Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 2:12 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Mixing between RTL and LTR scripts

I agree that there is a place for the UASG to put forth a Good Practice guide that is intended to be read by implementers of limited (or greater) experience.  I suggest that an Informational RFC is a good idea that covers the depth of content that Andrew alluded to.  Having the two complementary documents will keep us from creating a single document that fails to adequately address the variety of audiences that we target.

--Rich

Richard Merdinger
VP, Domains
rmerdinger at godaddy.com
 
 

On 5/10/18, 6:52 AM, "UA-discuss on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

    On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:44:18AM +0000, Don Hollander wrote:
    > 
    > I’m not sure where this should be documented.   In the Unicode Consortium?   I
    > don’t think the IETF, but I may be wrong.  Does it fit within the W3C?
    
    It doesn't fit in any of these.
    
    The IDNA RFCs already say that you need to be careful about this, but
    they note, quite correctly, that there is literally no way to make a
    rule about entire domain names (as we have noted in this thread too).
    It would be possible to publish an RFC, if people really wanted to,
    restating that advice more strongly.  But it's still at best going to
    be advice.  And unfortunately, some domain names (ones that happen
    probably not to be aimed at humans) are _guaranteed_ to have bidi
    problems across the whole name in U-label form, because SRV and such
    like labels are going to have ASCII components because of the
    identifiers of protocols (like _tcp).
    
    > Would it be useful if the UASG published a Good Practice guide to BiDi in
    > Domain Names and Email Addresses?   (I think, Raed, that you’ve done the work) 
    > We could then update our existing documents to reference it.   Or, if there’s
    > someone else who’s got a good guide, we could reference that instead of
    > building it afresh.
    > 
    
    I think that would be a fine thing to do, but I think that you
    probably need someone with serious depth in the DNS and email
    protocols to help with it in order to make sure it doesn't run afoul
    of the details of the protocols.
    
    Best regards,
    
    A
    
    -- 
    Andrew Sullivan
    ajs at anvilwalrusden.com