I believe for plain text with no fancy Unicode values, the rendering is well-defined because the period and ampersand are both neutral and assume directionality from the surrounding characters. See
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/uba-basics.
Add Unicode directionality controls and you get a wide variety of orderings – but that’s as true of English as it is of Arabic. See
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2014/03/30/bidi-hyperlinks/.
When I last heard (several years ago), the Unicode consortium was still discussing whether to update the BiDi guidance to account for these cases.
-----Original Message-----
From: ua-eai-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-eai-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Borokhov
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 2:17 PM
To: Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; ua-eai@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-EAI] arabic1.arabic2@arabic3.arabic4
From a logical standpoint, arabic1.arabic2 is the mailbox name and arabic3.arabic4 is the hostname.
But of course how this is displayed visually is entirely different. If all components are indeed in Arabic script, this would be rendered as
arabic4.arabic3@arabic2.arabic1
which components are which does not change in this case, but the visual representation is the reverse of the logical one.
Paul
> 3 апр. 2017 г., в 14:10, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> написал(а):
>
> Dear all:
>
> In the above example, which is the mailbox name and which is the domain name?
>
> Andrew Sullivan tells me it’s not addressed by the protocol because it’s an implementation issue.
>
> Raed: How does Raseel handle this?
>
> Don
> _______________________________________________
> UA-EAI mailing list
_______________________________________________
UA-EAI mailing list