At 12:07 PM +0100 3/7/09, Patrik Fältström wrote: >I think regarding digits in TLDs (or rather, non-letters), this is the right >time when one definitely should have the basic rule to not "add something >until it breaks", but instead, "only add things we do know will not create any >harm".
Yes, that's a good statement. >And I think within those basic rules, we should just say no to digits in TLDs. >Anywhere. Or rather, every character in a U-label in a TLD have to have an >explicit directionality. I'm not sure I agree that we should go that far. It is clear that TLDs should not start with digits because of bad BiDi interactions. I thought that a TLD of "E164" (to take a controversial example...) is known to cause no harm at a TLD due to BiDi issues, but I could be wrong. All labels will be to the left of it. There is a LtoR character at the beginning. Is there a legal U-label that can go before it that will cause the "E" or any digits to move? I have no idea about, for example, "<RtoLcharacter>164" as a TLD. >I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something if not >proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add something only if >proven that it absolutely not does create any harm", and then have the people >that want certain dangerous characters in there explain why it is safe. I'm with Patrik on this one: you have to prove the negative in order to register a TLD. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
