[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-davies-idntables) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 7940

Label Generation Rules (lager)                                 K. Davies
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track                              A. Freytag
Expires: March 4, 2016                                        ASMUS Inc.
                                                       September 1, 2015

            Representing Label Generation Rulesets using XML


   This document describes a method of representing rules for validating
   identifier labels and alternate representations of those labels using
   Extensible Markup Language (XML).  These policies, known as "Label
   Generation Rulesets" (LGRs), are used for the implementation of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), for example.  The rulesets are
   used to implement and share that aspect of policy defining which
   labels and specific Unicode code points are permitted for
   registrations, which alternative code points are considered variants,
   and what actions may be performed on labels containing those

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  LGR Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Basic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.1.  The version Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.2.  The date Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.3.  The language Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.4.  The scope Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.5.  The description Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.6.  The validity-start and validity-end Elements  . . . .   9
       3.3.7.  The unicode-version Element . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.8.  The references Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Code Points and Variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Conditional Contexts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.1.  Basic Variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.2.  The type attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.3.3.  Null Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.3.4.  Variants with Reflexive Mapping . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.3.5.  Conditional Variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.4.  Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.4.1.  The ref Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.4.2.  The comment Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.5.  Code Point Tagging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   5.  Whole Label and Context Evaluation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  Basic Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.2.  Character Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       5.2.1.  Declaring and Invoking Named Classes  . . . . . . . .  22
       5.2.2.  Tag-based Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       5.2.3.  Unicode Property-based Classes  . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       5.2.4.  Explicitly Declared Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       5.2.5.  Combined Classes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.3.  Whole Label and Context Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       5.3.1.  The rule Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       5.3.2.  The Match Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       5.3.3.  The count Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       5.3.4.  The name and by-ref Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       5.3.5.  The choice Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.3.6.  Literal Code Point Sequences  . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.3.7.  The any Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.3.8.  The start and end Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       5.3.9.  Example rule from IDNA2008  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     5.4.  Parameterized Context or When Rules . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       5.4.1.  The anchor Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       5.4.2.  The look-behind and look-ahead Elements . . . . . . .  34
       5.4.3.  Omitting the anchor Element . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   6.  The action Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     6.1.  The match and not-match Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     6.2.  Actions with Variant Type Triggers  . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       6.2.1.  The all-, any- and only-variants Attributes . . . . .  37
       6.2.2.  Example from RFC 3743 Tables  . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     6.3.  Recommended Disposition Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     6.4.  Precedence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     6.5.  Implied Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     6.6.  Default Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   7.  Processing a Label against an LGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     7.1.  Determining Eligibility for a Label . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     7.2.  Determining Variants for a Label  . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     7.3.  Determining a Disposition for a Label or Variant Label  .  44
   8.  Conversion to and from Other Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   9.  Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     10.1.  Media Type Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     10.2.  URN Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     10.3.  Disposition Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   Appendix A.  Example Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   Appendix B.  How to Translate RFC 3743 based Tables into the XML
                Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   Appendix C.  Indic Syllable Structure Example . . . . . . . . . .  55
   Appendix D.  RelaxNG Compact Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   Appendix E.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   Appendix F.  Editorial Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
     F.1.  Known Issues and Future Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
     F.2.  Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60

1.  Introduction

   This memo describes a method of using Extensible Markup Language
   (XML) to describe the algorithm used to determine whether a given
   identifier label is permitted, and under which conditions, based on
   the code points it contains and their context.  These algorithms are

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   comprised of a list of permissible code points, variant code point
   mappings, and a set of rules acting on them.  These algorithms form
   part of an administrator's policies, and can be referred to as Label
   Generation Rulesets (LGRs).  In deploying internationalized domain
   names (IDNs), they have also been known as IDN tables or variant

   There are other kinds of policies relating to labels which are not
   normally covered by Label Generation Rulesets and are therefore not
   representable by the XML format described here.  These include, but
   are not limited to policies around trademarks, or prohibition of
   fraudulent or objectionable words.

   Administrators of the zones for top-level domain registries have
   historically published their LGRs using ASCII text or HTML.  The
   formatting of these documents has been loosely based on the format
   used for the Language Variant Table described in [RFC3743].
   [RFC4290] also provides a "model table format" that describes a
   similar set of functionality.  Common to these formats is that the
   algorithms used to evaluate the data therein are implicit or
   specified elsewhere.

   Through the first decade of IDN deployment, experience has shown that
   LGRs derived from these formats are difficult to consistently
   implement and compare due to their differing formats.  A universal
   format, such as one using a structured XML format, will assist by
   improving machine-readability, consistency, reusability and
   maintainability of LGRs.

   When used to represent simple list of permitted code points, the
   format is quite straightforward.  At the cost of some complexity in
   the resulting file, it also allows for an implementation of more
   sophisticated handling of conditional variants that reflects the
   known requirements of current zone administrator policies.

   Another feature of this format is that it allows many of the
   algorithms to be made explicit and machine implementable.  A
   remaining small set of implicit algorithms is described in this
   document to allow commonality in implementation.

   While the predominant usage of this specification is to represent IDN
   label policy, the format is not limited to IDN usage and may also be
   used for describing ASCII domain name label rulesets, or other types
   of identifier labels beyond those used for domain names.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

2.  Design Goals

   The following goals informed the design of this format:

   o  The format needs to be implementable in a reasonably
      straightforward manner in software.

   o  The format should be able to be automatically checked for
      formatting errors, so that common mistakes can be caught.

   o  An LGR needs to be able to express the set of valid code points
      that are allowed for registration under a specific administrator's

   o  Provide the ability to express computed alternatives to a given
      identifier based on mapping relationships between code points,
      whether one-to-one or many-to-many.  These computed alternatives
      are commonly known as "variants".

   o  Variant code points should be able to be tagged with specific
      dispositions or categories that can be used to support registry
      policy (such as whether to allocate the computed variant, or to
      merely block it from usage or registration).

   o  Variants and code points must be able to be stipulated based on
      contextual information.  For example, specific variants may only
      be applicable when they follow another specific code point, or
      when the code point is displayed in a specific presentation form.

   o  The data contained within an LGR must be able to be interpreted
      unambiguously, so that independent implementations that utilize
      the contents will arrive at the same results.

   o  To the largest extent possible, policy rules should be able to be
      specified in the XML format without relying hidden, or built-in
      algorithms in implementations.

   o  LGRs should be suitable for comparison and re-use, such that one
      could easily compare the contents of two or more to see the
      differences, to merge them, and so on.

   o  As many existing IDN tables as practicable should be able to be
      migrated to the LGR format with all applicable interpretation
      logic retained.

   These requirements are partly derived from reviewing the existing
   corpus of published IDN tables, plus the requirements of ICANN's work
   to implement an LGR for the DNS Root Zone [LGR-PROCEDURE].  In

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   particular, Section B of that document identifies five specific
   requirements for an LGR methodology.

   The syntax and rules in [RFC5892] and [RFC3743] were also reviewed.

   It is explicitly not the goal of this format to stipulate what code
   points should be listed in an LGR by a zone administrator.  Which
   registration policies are used for a particular zone is outside the
   scope of this memo.

3.  LGR Format

   An LGR is expressed as a well-formed XML Document [XML].

3.1.  Namespace

   The XML Namespace URI is "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0".  [Note:
   the examples and schemas for any non-final versions of this
   specification use a namespace that is not guaranteed.  Early
   implementors should consider the need to revise the namespace in
   subsequent revisions.]

   See Section 10.2 for more information.

3.2.  Basic Structure

   The basic XML framework of the document is as follows:

       <?xml version="1.0"?>
       <lgr xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0">

   The "lgr" element contains up to three sub-elements.  First is an
   optional "meta" element that contains all meta-data associated with
   the LGR, such as its authorship, what it is used for, implementation
   notes and references.  This is followed by a "data" element that
   contains the substantive code point data.  Finally, an optional
   "rules" element contains information on contextual and whole-label
   evaluation rules, if any, along with any specific "action" elements
   providing for the disposition of labels and computed variant labels.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <?xml version="1.0"?>
       <lgr xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0">

   A document MUST contain exactly one "lgr" element.  Each "lgr"
   element MUST contain exactly one "data" element, optionally preceded
   by one "meta" element and optionally followed by one "rules" element.

   In the following descriptions, required, non-repeating elements or
   attributes are generally not called out explicitly, in contrast to
   optional ones or those that may be repeated.  For attributes that
   take lists as values the elements are space-delimited.

3.3.  Metadata

   The optional "meta" element is used to express meta-data associated
   within the LGR.  It can be used to identify the author or relevant
   contact person, explain the intended usage of the LGR, and provide
   implementation notes as well as references.  With the exception of
   "unicode-version" element, the data contained within is not required
   by software consuming the LGR in order to calculate valid labels, or
   to calculate variants.  The "unicode-version" element MUST be used by
   a consumer of the table to identify that it has the correct Unicode
   property data to perform operations on the table.

3.3.1.  The version Element

   The "version" element is optional.  It is used to uniquely identify
   each version of the LGR.  No specific format is required, but it is
   RECOMMENDED that it be the decimal representation of a single
   positive integer, which is incremented with each revision of the

   An example of a typical first edition of a document:


   The "version" element may have an optional "comment" attribute.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <version comment="draft">1</version>

3.3.2.  The date Element

   The optional "date" element is used to identify the date the LGR was
   posted.  The contents of this element MUST be a valid ISO 8601 "full-
   date" string as described in [RFC3339].

   Example of a date:


3.3.3.  The language Element

   The optional "language" element signals that the LGR is associated
   with a specific language or script.  The value of the "language"
   element MUST be a valid language tag as described in [RFC5646].  The
   tag may refer to a script plus undefined language if the LGR is not
   referring to a specific language.

   Example of an English language LGR:


   If the LGR applies to a specific script, rather than a language, the
   "und" language tag should be used followed by the relevant [RFC5646]
   script subtag.  For example, for a Cyrillic script LGR:


   If the LGR covers a specific set of multiple languages or scripts,
   the "language" element can be repeated.  However, for cases of a
   script-specific LGR exhibiting insignificant admixture of code points
   from other scripts, it is RECOMMENDED to use a single "language"
   element identifying the predominant script.  In the exceptional case
   of a multi-script LGR where no script is predominant, use Zyyy


   Note that that for the particular case of Japanese, a script tag
   "Jpan" exists that matches the mixture of scripts used in writing
   that language.  The preferred "language" element would be:


Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

3.3.4.  The scope Element

   This optional element refers to a scope, such as a domain, to which
   this policy is applied.  The "type" attribute specifies the type of
   scope being defined.  A type of "domain" means that the scope is a
   domain that represents the apex of the DNS zone to which the LGR is
   applied.  The value must be a valid domain name, and in the case of
   the DNS root zone, should be represented as ".".

       <scope type="domain">example.com</scope>

   There may be multiple "scope" tags used, for example to reflect a
   list of domains to which the LGR is applied.  Other types of scope
   are application defined, with an explanation in the "description"
   element RECOMMENDED.

3.3.5.  The description Element

   The "description" element is an optional free-form element that
   contains any additional relevant description that is useful for the
   user in its interpretation.  Typically, this field contains
   authorship information, as well as additional context on how the LGR
   was formulated and how it applies, such as citations and references
   that apply to the LGR as a whole.

   This field should not be relied upon for providing instructions on
   how to parse or utilize the data contained elsewhere in the
   specification.  Authors of tables should expect that software
   applications that parse and use LGRs will not use the description
   field to condition the application of the LGR's data and rules.

   The element has an optional "type" attribute, which refers to the
   internet media type of the enclosed data.  Typical types would be
   "text/plain" or "text/html".  The attribute SHOULD be a valid MIME
   type.  If supplied, it will be assumed that the contents are of that
   media type.  If the description lacks a type field, it will be
   assumed to be plain text ("text/plain").

3.3.6.  The validity-start and validity-end Elements

   The "validity-start" and "validity-end" elements are optional
   elements that describe the time period from which the contents of the
   LGR become valid (i.e. are used in registry policy), and the contents
   of the LGR cease to be used.

   The dates MUST confirm to the "full-date" format described in section
   5.6 of [RFC3339].

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015


3.3.7.  The unicode-version Element

   Whenever an LGR depends on character properties from a given version
   of the Unicode standard, the version number used in creating the LGR
   MUST be listed in the form x.y.z, where x, y, and z are positive,
   decimal integers (see [Unicode-Versions]).  If any software
   processing the table does not have access to character property data
   of the requisite version, it MUST NOT perform any operations relating
   to whole-label evaluation relying on Unicode properties
   (Section 5.2.3).

   The value of a given Unicode property in [UAX42] may change between
   versions, unless such change has been explicitly disallowed in
   [Unicode-Stability].  It is RECOMMENDED to only reference properties
   defined as stable or immutable.  As an alternative to referencing the
   property, the information can be presented explicitly in the LGR.


   It is not necessary to include a "unicode-version" element for LGRs
   that do not make use of Unicode properties, however, it is

3.3.8.  The references Element

   A Label Generation Ruleset may define a list of references which are
   used to associate various individual elements in the LGR to one or
   more normative references.  A common use for references is to
   annotate that code points belong to an externally defined collection
   or standard, or to give normative references for rules.

   References are specified in an optional "references" element contains
   any number of "reference" elements, each with a unique "id"
   attribute.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "id" attribute be a zero-based
   integer.  The value of each "reference" element SHOULD be the
   citation of a standard, dictionary or other specification in any
   suitable format.  In addition to an "id" attribute, a "reference"
   element may have a "comment" attribute for an optional free-form

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

         <reference id="0">The Unicode Standard, Version 7.0</reference>
         <reference id="1">Big-5: Computer Chinese Glyph and Character
            Code Mapping Table, Technical Report C-26, 1984</reference>
         <reference id="2" comment="synchronized with Unicode 6.1">
            10646:2012 3rd edition</reference>
         <char cp="0620" ref="0 2" />

   A reference is associated with an element by using an optional "ref"
   attribute (see Section 4.4.1).  The use of "ref" attributes is
   limited to certain kinds of elements in the "data" or "rules"
   sections of the LGR, most notably those defining code points and
   rules.  A "ref" attribute may neither occur on elements that are
   named references to character classes and rules nor on certain other
   element types.  See description of these elements below.

4.  Code Points and Variants

   The bulk of a label generation ruleset is a description of which set
   of code points are eligible for a given label.  For rulesets that
   perform operations that result in potential variants, the code point-
   level relationships between variants need to also be described.

   The code point data is collected within the "data" element.  Within
   this element, a series of "char" and "range" elements describe
   eligible code points, or ranges of code points, respectively.

   Discrete permissible code points or code point sequences are declared
   with a "char" element, e.g.

       <char cp="002D"/>

   Ranges of permissible code points may be stipulated with a "range"
   element, e.g.

       <range first-cp="0030" last-cp="0039"/>

   The range is inclusive of the first and last code points.  All
   attributes defined for a "range" element act as if applied to each
   code point within.  A "range" element has no child elements.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   It is always possible to substitute a list of individually specified
   code points for a range element.  The reverse is not necessarily the
   case.  Whenever such a substitution is possible, it makes no
   difference in processing the data.  Tools reading or writing the LGR
   format are free to aggregate sequences of consecutive code points of
   the same properties into range elements.

   Code points must be expressed in uppercase, hexadecimal, and zero
   padded to a minimum of 4 digits.  In other words, they are
   represented according to the standard Unicode convention but without
   the prefix "U+".  The rationale for not allowing other encoding
   formats, including native Unicode encoding in XML, is explored in
   [UAX42].  The XML conventions used in this format, including the
   element and attribute names, mirror this document where practical and
   reasonable to do so.  It is RECOMMENDED to list all "char" elements
   in ascending order of the "cp" attribute.

   All "char" elements in the data section MUST have distinct "cp"
   attributes.  The "range" elements MUST NOT specify code point ranges
   that overlap either another range or any single code point "char"

4.1.  Sequences

   A sequence of two or more code points may be specified in an LGR, for
   example, when defining the source for n:m variant mappings.  Another
   use of sequences would be in cases when the exact sequence of code
   points is required to occur in order for the constituent elements to
   be eligible, such as when a specific code point is only eligible when
   preceded or followed by another code point.  The following would
   define the eligibility of the MIDDLE DOT (U+00B7) only when both
   preceded and followed by the LATIN SMALL LETTER L (U+006C):

       <char cp="006C 00B7 006C" comment="Catalan middle dot"/>

   All sequences defined this way must be distinct, but sub-sequences
   may be defined.  Thus, the sequence defined here may coexist with
   single code point definitions such as:

       <char cp="006C" />

   As an alternative to using sequences to define a required context, a
   "char" or "range" element may specify conditional context using an
   optional "when" attribute as described below in Section 4.2.  The
   latter method is more flexible in that such conditional context is
   not limited to specific code point in addition to allowing both
   prohibited as well as required context to be specified.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   As described below, the "char" element, whether or not it is used for
   a single code point, or for a sequence, may have optional child
   elements defining variants.  Both the "char" and "range" elements can
   take a number of optional attributes for conditional inclusion,
   commenting, cross referencing and character tagging, as described

4.2.  Conditional Contexts

   A conditional context is specified by a rule that must be satisfied
   (or alternatively, must not be satisfied) for a code point in a given
   label, often at a particular location in a label.

   To specify a conditional context a "when" or "not-when" attribute may
   be used.  The value of each "when" or "not-when" attributes is a
   whole label or parameterized context rule as described below in
   Section 5.3.  The content condition is met when the rule specified in
   the "when" attribute is matched.  Alternatively, a "not-when"
   attribute may be used for a rule that must not be matched.  It is an
   error to reference a rule that is not actually defined in the "rules"

   A parameterized context rule (see Section 5.4) defines the context
   immediately surrounding a given code point; unlike a sequence, the
   context is not limited to a specific fixed code point, but for
   example may be a code point that is a member of a certain subset or
   has a certain Unicode property.

   Given a suitable definition of a parameterized context rule named
   "follows-virama" this example specifies that a ZERO-WIDTH JOINER
   (U+200D) is restricted to immediately follow any of several code
   points classified as virama:

       <char cp="200D" when="follows-virama" />

   For a complete example, see Appendix A.

   In contrast, a whole label rule (see Section 5.3) specifies a
   condition to be met by the entire label, for example that it must
   contain at least one code point from a given script anywhere in the
   label.  In the following example no digit from either range must
   occur in a label that mixes digits from both ranges:

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

          <range first-cp="0660" last-cp="0669" not-when="mixed-digits"
                 tag="arabic-indic-digits" />
          <range first-cp="06F0" last-cp="06F9" not-when="mixed-digits"
                 tag="extended-arabic-indic-digits" />

   (See Section 5.3.9 for an example of the "mixed-digits" rule.)

   The "when" or "not-when" attributes are mutually exclusive.  They may
   be applied to both "char" and "range" elements in the "data" element,
   as well as to "var" elements (see Section 4.3.5).

   If a contextual condition is not satisfied for any code point in a
   label, the label is invalid, see Section 6.5.  For variants, the
   conditional context restricts the definition of the variant to the
   case where the condition is met.  Outside the specified context, a
   variant is not defined .

4.3.  Variants

   Most LGRs typically only determine simple code point eligibility, and
   for them, the elements described so far would be the only ones
   required for their "data" section.  Others additionally specify a
   mapping of code points to other code points, known as "variants".
   What constitutes a variant code point is a matter of policy, and
   varies for each implementation.  The following examples are intended
   to demonstrate the syntax; they are not necessarily typical.

4.3.1.  Basic Variants

   Variant code points are specified using one of more "var" elements as
   children of a "char" element.  The target mapping is specified using
   the "cp" attribute.  Other, optional attributes for the "var" element
   are described below.

   For example, to map LATIN SMALL LETTER V (U+0076) as a variant of

       <char cp="0075">
           <var cp="0076"/>

   A sequence of multiple code points can be specified as a variant of a
   single code point.  For example, the sequence of LATIN SMALL LETTER O
   (U+006F) then LATIN SMALL LETTER E (U+0065) might hypothetically be
   specified as a variant for an LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH DIAERESIS
   (U+00F6) as follows:

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <char cp="00F6">
           <var cp="006F 0065"/>

   The source and target of a variant mapping may both be sequences, but
   not ranges.

   The "var" element specifies variant mappings in only one direction,
   even though the variant relation is usually considered symmetric,
   that is, if A is a variant of B then B should also be a variant of A.
   The format requires that the inverse of the variant be given
   explicitly to fully specify symmetric variant relations in the LGR.
   This has the beneficial side effect of making the symmetry explicit:

       <char cp="006F 0065">
           <var cp="00F6"/>

   Variant relations are normally not only symmetric, but also
   transitive.  If A is a variant of B and B is a variant of C, then A
   is also a variant of C.  As with symmetry, these transitive relations
   are spelled out explicitly in the LGR.

   All variant mappings are unique.  For a given "char" element all
   "var" elements MUST have a unique combination of "cp", "when" and
   "not-when" attributes.  It is RECOMMENDED to list the "var" elements
   in ascending order of their target code point sequence.  (For "when"
   and "not-when" attributes, see Section 4.3.5).

4.3.2.  The type attribute

   Variants may be tagged with an optional "type" attribute.  The value
   of the "type" attribute may be any non-empty value not starting with
   an underscore and not containing spaces.  This value is used to
   resolve the disposition of any variant labels created using a given
   variant.  (See Section 6.2.)

   By default, the values of the "type" attribute directly describe the
   target policy status (disposition) for a variant label that was
   generated using a particular variant, with any variant label being
   assigned a disposition corresponding to the most restrictive variant
   type.  Several conventional disposition values are predefined below
   in Section 6.  Whenever these values can represent the desired
   policy, they SHOULD be used.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <char cp="767C">
           <var cp="53D1" type="allocatable"/>
           <var cp="5F42" type="blocked"/>
           <var cp="9AEA" type="blocked"/>
           <var cp="9AEE" type="blocked"/>

   By default, if a variant label contains any instance of one of the
   variants of type "blocked" the label would be blocked, but if it
   contained only instances of variants to be allocated it could be
   allocated.  See the discussion about implied actions in Section 6.6.

   The XML format for the LGR makes the relation between the values of
   the "type" attribute on variants and the resulting disposition of
   variant labels fully explicit.  See the discussion in Section 6.2.
   Making this relation explicit allows a generalization of the "type"
   attribute from directly reflecting dispositions to a more
   differentiated intermediate value that used in the resolution of
   label disposition.  Instead of the default action of applying the
   most restrictive disposition to the entire label, such a generalized
   resolution can be used to achieve additional goals, such as limiting
   the set of allocated variant labels, or to implement other policies
   found in existing LGRs (see for example Appendix B).

   Because variant mappings MUST be unique, it is not possible to define
   the same variant for the same "char" element with different type
   attributes (see however Section 4.3.5).

4.3.3.  Null Variants

   A null variant is a variant string that maps to no code point.  This
   is used when a particular code point sequence is considered
   discretionary in the context of a whole label.  To specify a null
   variant, use an empty cp attribute.  For example, to mark a string
   with a ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER (U+200C) to the same string without the

       <char cp="200C">
           <var cp=""/>

   This is useful in expressing the intent that some code points in a
   label are to be mapped away when generating a canonical variant of
   the label.  However, in tables that are designed to have symmetric
   variant mappings, this could lead to combinatorial explosion, if not
   handled carefully.

   The symmetric form of a null variant is expressed as follows:

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <char cp="">
           <var cp="200C" type="invalid" />

   A "char" element with an empty "cp" attribute MUST specify at least
   one variant mapping.  It is strongly RECOMMENDED to use a type of
   "invalid" or equivalent when defining variant mappings from null
   sequences, so that variant mapping from null sequences are removed in
   variant label generation (see Section 4.3.2).

4.3.4.  Variants with Reflexive Mapping

   At first sight there seems to be no call for adding variant mappings
   for which source and target code points are the same, that is for
   which the mapping is reflexive, or, in other words, an identity
   mapping.  Yet such reflexive mappings occur frequently in LGRs that
   follow [RFC3743].

   Adding a "var" element allows both a type and a reference id to be
   specified for it.  While the reference id is not used in processing,
   the type of the variant can be used to trigger actions.  In permuting
   the label to generate all possible variants, the type associated with
   a reflexive variant mapping is applied to any of the permuted labels
   containing the original code point.

   In the following example, the code point U+3473 exists both as a
   variant of U+3447 and as a variant of itself (reflexive mapping).
   Assuming an original label of "U+3473 U+3447", the permuted variant
   "U+3473 U+3473" would consist of the reflexive variant of U+3473
   followed by a variant of U+3447.  Accordingly, the types for both of
   the variant mappings used to generate that particular permutation
   would have the value "preferred" given the following definitions of
   variant mappings:

        <char cp="3447" ref="0">
         <var cp="3473" type="preferred" ref="1 3" />
       <char cp="3473" ref="0">
         <var cp="3447" type="blocked" ref="1 3" />
         <var cp="3473" type="preferred" ref="0" />

   Having established the variant types in this way, a set of actions
   could be defined that return a disposition of "allocatable" or
   "activated" for a label consisting exclusively of variants with type
   "preferred" for example.  (For details on how to define actions based
   on variant types see Section 6.2.1.)

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   In general, using reflexive variant mappings in this manner makes it
   possible to calculate disposition values using a uniform approach for
   all labels, whether they consist of mapped variant code points,
   original code points, or a mixture of both.  In particular, the
   dispositions for two otherwise identical labels may differ based on
   which variant mappings were executed in order to generate each of
   them.  (For details on how to generate variants and evaluate
   dispositions, see Section 7.)

   Another useful convention that uses reflexive variants is described
   below in Section 6.2.1.

4.3.5.  Conditional Variants

   Fundamentally, variants are mappings between two sequences of code
   points.  However, in some instances for a variant relationship to
   exist, some context external to the code point sequence must also be
   considered.  For example, a positional context may determine whether
   two code point sequences are variants of each other.

   An example of that are Arabic code points which can have different
   forms based on position, with some code points sharing forms, thus
   making them variants in the positions corresponding to those forms.
   Such positional context cannot be solely derived from the code point
   by itself, as the code point would be the same for the various forms.

   As described in Section 4.2 a "when" or "not-when" attribute may be
   given for any "var" element to specify required or prohibited
   contextual conditions under which the variant defined.

   Assuming the "rules" element contains suitably defined rules for
   "arabic-isolated" and "arabic-final", the following example shows how
   variant of ARABIC LETTER ALEF WITH HAMZA BELOW (U+0625), but only
   when it appears in its isolated or final forms:

       <char cp="0625">
           <var cp="0673" when="arabic-isolated"/>
           <var cp="0673" when="arabic-final"/>

   While only a single "when" or "not-when" attribute can be applied to
   any "var" element, multiple "var" elements using the same mapping,
   but different "when" or "not-when" attributes may be specified, as
   the combination of mapping and conditional context defines a unique
   variant.  Care must be taken to ensure that for each variant label at
   most one of the contextual conditions is met for variants with the
   same mapping; otherwise the results are undefined.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   Two contexts may be complementary, as in the following example, which
   shows ARABIC LETTER TEH MARBUTA (U+0629) as a variant of ARABIC
   LETTER ALEF MAKSURA (U+0649), but with two different types.

       <char cp="0647" >
         <var cp="0629" not-when="arabic-final" type="blocked" />
         <var cp="0629" when="arabic-final" type="allocatable" />

   The intent is that in final position a label that uses U+0629 instead
   of U+0647 should be considered essentially the same label and
   therefore allocatable to the same entity, while the same substitution
   in non-final context leads to labels that are different, but
   considered confusable so that either one, but not both should be

   For symmetry, the reverse mappings must exist, and must agree in
   their "when" or "not-when" attributes.  However, symmetry does not
   apply to the other attributes.  For example, these are potential
   reverse mappings for the above:

       <char cp="0629" >
         <var cp="0647" not-when="arabic-final" type="allocatable" />
         <var cp="0647" when="arabic-final" type="allocatable" />

   Here, both variants have the same "type" attribute.  While it is
   tempting to recognize that in this instance the "when" and "not-when"
   attributes are complementary and therefore between them cover every
   single possible context, it is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to use the format
   shown in the example that makes the symmetry easily verifiable by
   parsers and tools.  (The same applies to entries created for

   Arabic is an example of a script for which such conditional variants
   have been implemented based on the joining contexts for Arabic code
   points.  The mechanism defined here supports other forms of
   conditional variants that may required by other scripts.

4.4.  Annotations

   Two attributes, the "ref" and "comment" attributes, can be used to
   annotate individual elements in the LGR.  They are ignored in
   machine-processing or the LGR.  The "ref" attribute is intended for
   formal annotations and the "comment" attribute for free form
   annotation.  The latter can be applied more widely.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

4.4.1.  The ref Attribute

   Reference information may optionally be specified by a "ref"
   attribute, consisting of a space delimited sequence of reference

       <char cp="522A" ref="0">
           <var cp="5220" ref="2 3"/>
           <var cp="5220" ref="2 3"/>

   This facility is typically used to give source information for code
   points or variant relations.  This information is ignored when
   machine-processing an LGR.  If applied to a range the "ref" attribute
   applies to every code point in the range.  All reference identifiers
   MUST be from the set declared in the "references" element (see
   Section 3.3.8).  It is an error to repeat a reference identifier in
   the same "ref" attribute.  It is RECOMMENDED that identifiers be
   listed in ascending order.

   In addition to "char", "range" and "var" elements in the data
   section, a "ref" attribute may be present for a number of elements
   containd in the "rules" element as described below: actions, literals
   ("char" inside a rule), as well as for definitions of rules and
   classes, but not for named references using the "by-ref" attribute
   defined below.  (The use of the "by-ref" and "ref" attributes is
   mutually exclusive.)  None of the elements in the metadata take a
   "ref" attribute; to provide additional information use the
   description element instead.

4.4.2.  The comment Attribute

   Any "char", "range" or "variant" element in the data section may
   contain an optional "comment" attribute.  The contents of a "comment"
   attribute are free-form plain text.  Comments are ignored in machine
   processing of the table.  Comment attributes may also be placed on
   all elements in the "rules" section of the document, such as actions
   and match operators, such as literals ("char"), as well as
   definitions of classes and rules, but not on child elements of the
   "class" element.  Finally, in the metadata, only the "version" and
   "reference" elements may have "comment" attributes (to match the
   syntax in [RFC3743]).

4.5.  Code Point Tagging

   Typically, LGRs are used to explicitly designate allowable code
   points, where any label that contains a code point not explicitly

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   listed in the LGR is considered an ineligible label according to the

   For more complex registry rules, there may be a need to discern one
   or more subsets of code points.  This can be accomplished by applying
   an optional "tag" attribute to "char" or "range" elements that are
   child elements of the "data" element.  By collecting code points that
   share the same tag value, character classes may be defined (see
   Section 5.2.2) which can then be used in whole label evaluation rules
   (see Section 5.3.2).

   Each "tag" attribute may contain multiple values separated by white
   space.  A tag value is an identifier, which may also include certain
   punctuation marks, such as colon.  Formally, it MUST correspond to
   the XML 1.0 Nmtoken (Name token) production.  It is an error to
   duplicate a value within the same "tag" attribute.  A "tag" attribute
   for a "range" element applies to all code points in the range.
   Because code point sequences are not proper members of a set of code
   points, a "tag" attribute MUST NOT be present in a "char" element
   defining a code point sequence.

5.  Whole Label and Context Evaluation

5.1.  Basic Concepts

   The code points in a label sometimes need to satisfy context-based
   rules, for example for the label to be considered valid, or to
   satisfy the context for a variant mapping (see the description of the
   "when" attribute in Section 5.4).

   A Whole Label Evaluation rule (WLE) is applied to the whole label.
   It is used to validate both original labels and variant labels
   computed from them using a permutation over all applicable variant
   mappings.  A conditional context rules is a specialized form of WLE
   specific to the context around a single code point or code point
   sequence.  For example, if a rule is referenced in the "when"
   attribute of a variant mapping it is used to describe the conditional
   context under which the particular variant mapping is defined to

   Each rule is defined in a "rule" element.  A rule may contain the
   following as child elements:

   o  literal code points or code point sequences

   o  character classes, which define sets of code points to be used for
      context comparisons

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   o  context operators, which define when character classes and
      literals may appear

   o  nested rules, whether defined in place or invoked by reference

   Collectively, these are called match operators and are listed in
   Section 5.3.2.

5.2.  Character Classes

   Character classes are sets of characters that often share a
   particular property.  While they function like sets in every way,
   even supporting the usual set operators, they are called character
   classes here in a nod to the use of that term in regular expression
   syntax.  (This also avoids confusion with the term "character set" in
   the sense of character encoding.)

   Character classes (or sets) can be specified in several ways:

   o  by defining the set via matching a tag in the code point data.
      All characters with the same "tag" attribute are part of the same

   o  by referencing one of the Unicode character properties defined in
      the Unicode Character Database [UAX42];

   o  by explicitly listing all the code points in the class; or

   o  by defining the class as a set combination of any number of other

5.2.1.  Declaring and Invoking Named Classes

   A character class has an optional "name" attribute, consisting of a
   single, identifier not containing spaces.  All names for classes must
   be unique.  If the "name" attribute is omitted, the class is
   anonymous and exists only inside the rule or combined class where it
   is defined.  A named character class is defined independently and can
   be referenced by name from within any rules or as part of other
   character class definitions.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <class name="example" comment="an example class definition">
           <char cp="0061" />
           <char cp="4E00" />
           <class by-ref="example" />

   An empty "class" element with a "by-ref" attribute is a reference to
   an existing named class.  The "by-ref" attribute cannot be used in
   the same "class" element with any of these attributes: "name", "from-
   tag", "property" or "ref".  The "name" attribute MUST be present, if
   and only if the class is a direct child element of the "rules"
   element.  It is an error to reference a named class for which the
   definition has not been seen.

5.2.2.  Tag-based Classes

   The "char" or "range" elements that are child elements of the "data"
   element may contain a "tag" attribute that consists of one or more
   space separated tag values, for example:

       <char cp="0061" tag="letter lower"/>
       <char cp="4E00" tag="letter"/>

   This defines two tags for use with code point U+0061, the tag
   "letter" and the tag "lower".  Use

       <class name="letter" from-tag="letter" />
       <class name="lower" from-tag="lower" />

   to define two named character classes, "letter" and "lower",
   containing all code points with the respective tags, the first with
   0061 and 4E00 as elements and the latter with 0061, but not 4E00 as
   an element.  The "name" attribute may be omitted for an anonymous in-
   place definition of a nested, tag-based class.

   Tag values are typically identifiers, with the addition of a few
   punctuation symbols, such as colon.  Formally they MUST correspond to
   the XML 1.0 Nmtoken (Name token) production.  While a "tag" attribute
   may contain a list of tag values, the "from-tag" attribute always
   contains a single tag value.

   If the document contains no "char" or "range" elements with a
   corresponding tag, the character class represents the empty set.
   This is valid, to allow a common "rules" element to be shared across
   files.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations allow for a

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   warning to ensure that referring to an undefined tag in this way is

5.2.3.  Unicode Property-based Classes

   A class is defined in terms of Unicode properties by giving the
   Unicode property alias and the property value or property value
   alias, separated by a colon.

       <class name="virama" property="ccc:9" />

   The example above selects all code points for which the Unicode
   canonical combining class (ccc) value is 9.  This value of the ccc is
   assigned to all code points that encode viramas.  The string "ccc" is
   the short-alias for the canonical combining class, as defined in the
   Unicode Character Database [UAX42].

   Unicode properties may, in principle, change between versions of the
   Unicode Standard.  However, the values assigned for a given version
   are fixed.  If Unicode Properties are used, a Unicode version MUST be
   declared in the "unicode-version" element in the header.  (Note: some
   Unicode properties are by definition stable across versions and do
   not change once assigned (see [Unicode-Stability].)

   It is RECOMMENDED that all implementations processing LGR files
   provide support for the following minimal set of Unicode properties:

   o  General Category (gc)

   o  Script (sc)

   o  Canonical Combining Class (ccc)

   o  Bidi Class (bc)

   o  Arabic Joining Type (jt)

   o  Indic Syllabic Category (InSC)

   o  Deprecated (Dep)

   The short name for each property is given in parentheses.

   If a program that is using an LGR to determine the validity of a
   label encounters a property that it does not support, it MUST abort
   with an error.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

5.2.4.  Explicitly Declared Classes

   A class of code points may also be declared by listing the code
   points that are a member of the class.  This is useful when tagging
   cannot be used because code points are not listed individually as
   part of the eligible set of code points for the given LGR, for
   example because they only occur in code point sequences.

   To define a class in terms of an explicit list of code points use a
   space separated list of hexadecimal code point values:

        <class name="abcd">0061 0062 0063 0064</class>

   This defines a class named "abcd" containing the code points for
   characters "a", "b", "c" and "d".  The ordering of the code points is
   not material, but it is RECOMMENDED to list them in ascending order.

   In a class definition, ranges of code points are represented by a
   hexadecimal start and end value separated by a hyphen.  The following
   declaration is equivalent to the preceding:

       <class name="abcd">0061-0064</class>

   Range and code point declarations can be freely intermixed:

       <class name="abcd">0061 0062-0063 0064</class>

   The contents of a class differ from a repertoire in that the latter
   may contain sequences as elements, while the former may not.
   Instead, they closely resemble character classes as found in regular

5.2.5.  Combined Classes

   Classes may be combined using operators for set complement, union,
   intersection, difference and symmetric difference (exclusive-or).
   Because classes fundamentally function like sets, the union of
   several character classes is itself a class, for example.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   | Logical Operation | Example                                      |
   | Complement        | <complement><class by-ref="xxx"></complement>|
   | Union             | <union>                                      |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-1"/>                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-2"/>                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-3"/>                 |
   |                   | </union>                                     |
   | Intersection      | <intersection>                               |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-1"/>                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-2"/>                 |
   |                   | </intersection>                              |
   | Difference        | <difference>                                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-1"/>                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-2"/>                 |
   |                   | </difference>                                |
   | Symmetric         | <symmetric-difference>                       |
   | Difference        |    <class by-ref="class-1"/>                 |
   |                   |    <class by-ref="class-2"/>                 |
   |                   | </symmetric-difference>                      |

                               Set Operators

   The elements from this table may be arbitrarily nested inside each
   other, subject to the following restriction: a "complement" element
   MUST contain precisely one "class" or one of the operator elements,
   while an "intersection", "symmetric-difference" or "difference"
   element MUST contain precisely two, and a "union" element MUST
   contain two or more of these elements.

   An anonymous combined class can be defined directly inside a rule or
   of the match operator elements that allow child elements (see
   Section 5.3.2) by using the set combination as the outer element.

               <class by-ref="xxx"/>
               <class by-ref="yyy"/>

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   The example shows the definition of an anonymous combined class that
   represents the union of classes "xxx" and "yyy".  There is no need to
   wrap this union inside another "class" element, and, in fact, set
   combination elements MUST NOT be nested inside a "class" element.

   Lastly, to create a named combined class that can be referenced in
   other classes or in rules as <class by-ref="xxxyyy"/>, add a "name"
   attribute to the set combination element, for example <union
   name="xxxyyy" /> and place it at the top level immediately below the
   "rules" element (see Section 5.2.1).

       <union name="xxxyyy">
           <class by-ref="xxx"/>
           <class by-ref="yyy"/>
         . . .

   Because (as for ordinary sets) a combination of classes is itself a
   class, no matter by what combinations of set operators a combined
   class is created, a reference to it always uses the "class" element
   as described in Section 5.2.1.  That is, a named class is always
   referenced via an empty "class" element using the "by-ref" attribute
   containing the name of the class to be referenced.

5.3.  Whole Label and Context Rules

   Each rule is comprised of a series of matching operators that must be
   satisfied in order to determine whether a label meets a given
   condition.  Rules may reference other rules or character classes
   defined elsewhere in the table.

5.3.1.  The rule Element

   A matching rule is defined by a "rule" element, the child elements of
   which are one of the match operators from Section 5.3.2.  In
   evaluating a rule, each child element is matched in order.  Rule
   elements may be nested.

   Rules may optionally be named using a "name" attribute containing a
   single identifier string with no spaces.  A named rule may be
   incorporated into another rule by reference.  If the "name" attribute
   is omitted, the rule is anonymous and may not be incorporated by
   reference into another rule or referenced by an action or "when"

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   A simple rule to match a label where all characters are members of
   the class "preferred":

       <rule name="preferred">
           <start />
           <class by-ref="preferred" count="1+"/>
           <end />

   Rules are paired with explicit and implied actions, triggering these
   actions when a rule matches a label.  For example, a simple explicit
   action for the rule shown above would be:

       <action disp="allocatable" match="preferred" />

   This has the effect of setting the policy disposition for a label
   made up entirely of "preferred" code points to "allocatable".
   Explicit actions are further discussed in Section 6 and the use of
   rules in conditional contexts for implied actions is discussed in
   Section 4.3.5 and Section 6.5.

5.3.2.  The Match Operators

   The child elements of a rule are a series of match operators, which
   are listed here by type and name and with a basic example or two.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   | Type       | Operator    | Examples                           |
   | logical    | any         | <any />                            |
   |            +-------------+------------------------------------+
   |            | choice      | <choice>                           |
   |            |             |  <rule by-ref="alternative1"/>     |
   |            |             |  <rule by-ref="alternative2"/>     |
   |            |             | </choice>                          |
   | positional | start       | <start />                          |
   |            +-------------+------------------------------------+
   |            | end         | <end />                            |
   | literal    | char        | <char cp="0061 0062 0063" />       |
   | set        | class       | <class by-ref="class1" />          |
   |            |             | <class>0061 0064-0065</class>      |
   | group      | rule        | <rule by-ref="rule1" />            |
   |            |             | <rule><any /><rule />              |
   | contextual | anchor      | <anchor />                         |
   |            +-------------+------------------------------------+
   |            | look-ahead  | <look-ahead><any /></look-ahead>   |
   |            +-------------+------------------------------------+
   |            | look-behind | <look-behind><any /></look-behind> |

                              Match Operators

   Any element defining an anonymous class can be used as a match
   operator, including any of the set combination operators (see
   Section 5.2.5) as well as references to named classes.

   All match operators shown as empty elements in the Examples column of
   the table above do not support child elements of their own; otherwise
   match operators may be nested.  In particular, anonymous "rule"
   elements can be used for grouping.

5.3.3.  The count Attribute

   The optional "count" attribute specifies the minimally required or
   maximal permitted number of times a match operator is used to match
   input.  If the "count" attribute is

   n    the match operator matches the input exactly n times, where n is
        1 or greater.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   n+   the match operator matches the input at least n times, where n
        is 0 or greater.

   n:m  the match operator matches the input at least n times where n is
        0 or greater, but matches the input up to m times in total,
        where m > n.  If m = n and n > 0, the match operator matches the
        input exactly n times.

   If there is no "count" attribute, the match operator matches the
   input exactly once.

   In matching, greedy evaluation is used in the sense defined for
   regular expressions: beyond the required number or times, the input
   is matched as many times as possible, but not so often as to prevent
   a match of the remainder of the rule.

   The "count" attribute MUST NOT be applied to match operators of type
   "start", "end", "anchor", "look-ahead" and "look-behind" or to any
   operators, such as "rule" or "choice" that contain them, whether the
   latter are declared in place or used by reference.  The "count"
   attribute may be applied to "class" and "rule" elements only if they
   do not have a "name" attribute, that is, to anonymous rules and
   classes or any invocation of predefined rules or classes by

   The optional "count" attribute MAY be applied to match operators of
   type "any", "char" and "class", as well as to match operators
   "choice" and "rule", as long as they contain none of the operators
   "start", "end", "anchor", "look-ahead" and "look-behind" as direct or
   indirect child elements.  The same requirement applies recursively to
   any "rule" element referenced inside a "choice" or "rule" with a
   "count" attribute.  The "count" attribute cannot appear in the same
   element as a "name" attribute.

5.3.4.  The name and by-ref Attributes

   Like classes (see Section 5.2.1), rules declared as immediate child
   elements of the "rules" element MUST be named using a unique "name"
   attribute, and all other instances MUST NOT be named.  Anonymous
   rules and classes or reference to named rules and classes can be
   nested inside other match operators by reference.

   To reference a named rule or class inside a rule or match operator
   use a "rule" or "class" element with an optional "by-ref" attribute
   containing the name of the referenced element.  It is an error to
   reference a rule or class for which the complete definition has not
   been seen.  In other words, it is explicitly not possible to define
   recursive rules or class definitions.  The "by-ref" attribute cannot

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   appear in the same element as the "name" attribute, or in an element
   that has any child elements.

   Here's an example of a rule requiring that all labels be letters
   (optionally followed by combining marks) and possibly digits.  The
   example shows rules and classes referenced by name.

       <class name="letter" property="gc:L"/>
       <class name="combining-mark" property="gc:M"/>
       <class name="digit" property="gc:Nd" />
       <rule name="letter-grapheme">
          <class by-ref="letter" count="1+"/>
          <class by-ref="combining-mark" count="0+"/>

5.3.5.  The choice Element

   The "choice" element is used to represent a list of two or more

       <rule name="ldh">
          <choice count="1+">
              <class by-ref="letters"/>
              <class by-ref="digits"/>
              <char cp="002D" comment="literal HYPHEN"/>

   Each child element of a "choice" represents one alternative.  The
   first matching alternative determines the match for the "choice"
   element.  To express a choice where an alternative itself consists of
   a sequence of elements, the sequence must be wrapped in an anonymous

5.3.6.  Literal Code Point Sequences

   A literal code point sequence matches a single code point or a
   sequence.  It is defined by a "char" element, with the code point or
   sequence to be matched given by the "cp" attribute.  When used as a
   literal, a "char" element may contain a "count" in addition to the
   "cp" attribute and optional "comment" or "ref" attributes.  No other
   attributes or child elements are permitted.

5.3.7.  The any Element

   The "any" element matches any single code point.  It may have a
   "count" attribute.  For an example see Section 5.3.9

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   Unlike a literal, the "any" element" may not have a "ref" attribute.

5.3.8.  The start and end Elements

   To match the beginning or end of a label, use the "start" or "end"
   element.  An empty label would match this rule:

       <rule name="empty-label">

   Conceptually, Whole Label Evaluation Rules evaluate the label as a
   whole, but in practice, many rules do not actually need to be
   specified to match the entire label.  For example, to express a
   requirement of not starting a label with a digit, a rule needs to
   describe only the initial part of a label.

   This example uses the previously defined rules, together with start
   and end tag, to define a rule that requires that an entire label is
   well-formed.  For this example that means, that it must start with a
   letter and contains no leading digits or combining marks, nor
   combining marks placed on digits.

        <rule name="leading-letter" >
          <start />
          <rule by-ref="letter-grapheme" count="1"/>
          <choice count="0+">
            <rule by-ref="letter-grapheme" count="0+"/>
            <class by-ref="digit" count="0+"/>
          <end />

   Each "start" or "end" element occurs at most once in a rule, except
   if nested inside a "choice" element in such a way that in matching
   each alternative at most one occurrence of each is encountered.
   Otherwise, the result is an error; as is any case where a "start" or
   "end" element is not encountered as first or last element to be
   matched, respectively, in matching a rule.  Start and end elements do
   not have a "count" or any other attribute.  It is an error for any
   match operator enclosing a nested "start" or "end" element to have a
   "count" attribute.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

5.3.9.  Example rule from IDNA2008

   This is an example of the whole label evaluation rule from [RFC5892]
   forbidding the mixture of the Arabic-Indic and extended Arabic-Indic
   digits in the same label.  The example also demonstrates several
   instances of the use of anonymous rules for grouping.

          <range first-cp="0660" last-cp="0669" not-when="mixed-digits"
                 tag="arabic-indic-digits" />
          <range first-cp="06F0" last-cp="06F9" not-when="mixed-digits"
                 tag="extended-arabic-indic-digits" />
          <rule name="mixed-digits">
                   <class from-tag="arabic-indic-digits"/>
                   <any count="0+"/>
                   <class from-tag="extended-arabic-indic-digits"/>
                   <class from-tag="extended-arabic-indic-digits"/>
                   <any count="0+"/>
                   <class from-tag="arabic-indic-digits"/>

   The effect of this example is that a label containing a code point
   from either of the two digit ranges is invalid for any label matching
   the "mixed-digits" rule, that is, anytime a code point from the other
   range is also present.  Note that this is not the same as
   invalidating the definition of the "range" elements.

5.4.  Parameterized Context or When Rules

   A special type of rule provides a context for evaluating the validity
   of a code point or variant mapping.  This rule is invoked by the
   "when" or "not-when" attributes described in Section 4.2.  For "char"
   and "range" elements, an action implied by a context rule always has
   a disposition of "invalid" whenever the rule given by the "when"
   attribute is not matched (see Section 6.5).  Conversely, a "not-when"
   attribute results in a disposition of "invalid" whenever the rule is

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

5.4.1.  The anchor Element

   Such parameterized context or "When Rules" may contain a special
   place holder represented by an "anchor" element.  As each When Rule
   is evaluated, the "anchor" element is replaced by a literal
   corresponding to the "cp" attribute of the element containing the
   "when" (or "not-when") attribute.  The match to the "anchor" element
   must be at the same position in the label as the code point or
   variant mapping triggering the When Rule.

   For example, the Greek lower numeral sign is invalid if not
   immediately preceding a character in the Greek script.  This is most
   naturally addressed with a When Rule using look-ahead:

       <char cp="0375" when="preceding-greek"/>
       <class name="greek-script" property="sc:Grek"/>
       <rule name="preceding-greek">
               <class by-ref="greek-script"/>

   In evaluating this rule, the "anchor" element is treated as if it was
   replaced by a literal

       <char cp="0375"/>

   but only the instance of U+0375 at the given position is evaluated.
   If a label had two instances of U+0375 with the first one matching
   the rule and the second not, then evaluating the When Rule MUST
   succeed for the first and fail for the second instance.

   Unlike other rules, When Rules containing an "anchor" element MUST
   only be invoked via the "when" or "not-when" attributes on code
   points or variants; otherwise their "anchor" elements cannot be
   evaluated.  However, it is possible to invoke rules not containing an
   "anchor" element from a "when" or "not-when" attribute.  (See
   Section 5.4.3)

5.4.2.  The look-behind and look-ahead Elements

   Context rules use the "look-behind" and "look-ahead" elements to
   define context before and after the code point sequence matched by
   the "anchor" element.  If the "anchor" element is omitted, neither
   the "look-behind" nor the "look-ahead" element may be present.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   Here is an example of a rule that defines an "initial" context for an
   Arabic code point:

       <class name="transparent" property="jt:T"/>
       <class name="right-joining" property="jt:R"/>
       <class name="left-joining" property="jt:L"/>
       <class name="dual-joining" property="jt:D"/>
       <class name="non-joining" property="jt:U"/>
       <rule name="Arabic-initial">
               <class by-ref="transparent" count="0+"/>
               <class by-ref="non-joining"/>
           <class by-ref="transparent" count="0+" />
             <class by-ref="right-joining" />
             <class by-ref="dual-joining" />

   A "when rule" contains any combination of "look-behind", "anchor" and
   "look-ahead" elements in that order.  Each of these elements occurs
   at most once, except if nested inside a "choice" element in such a
   way that in matching each alternative at most one occurrence of each
   is encountered.  Otherwise, the result is undefined.  None of these
   elements takes a "count" attribute, nor does any enclosing match
   operator.  Otherwise, the result is undefined.  If a context rule
   contains a "look-ahead" or "look-behind" element, it MUST contain an
   "anchor" element.  If, because of a choice element, a required anchor
   is not actually encountered, the results are undefined.

5.4.3.  Omitting the anchor Element

   If the "anchor" element is omitted, the evaluation of the context
   rule is not tied to the position of the code point or sequence
   associated with the "when" attribute.

   According to [RFC5892] Katakana middle dot is invalid in any label
   not containing at least one Japanese character anywhere in the label.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   Because this requirement is independent of the position of the middle
   dot, the rule does not require an "anchor" element.

       <char cp="30FB" when="japanese-in-label"/>
       <rule name="japanese-in-label">
               <class property="sc:Hani"/>
               <class property="sc:Kata"/>
               <class property="sc:Hira"/>

   The Katakana middle dot is used only with Han, Katakana or Hiragana.
   The corresponding When Rule requires that at least one code point in
   the label is in one of these scripts, but the position of that code
   point is independent of the location of the middle dot and no anchor
   therefore required.  (Note that the Katakana middle dot itself is of
   script Common, that is, "sc:Zyyy").

6.  The action Element

   The purpose of a rule is to trigger a specific action.  Often, the
   action simply results in blocking or invalidating a label that does
   not match a rule.  An example of an action invalidating a label
   because it does not match a rule named "leading-letter" is as

      <action disp="invalid" not-match="leading-letter"/>

   If an action is to be triggered on matching a rule, a "match"
   attribute is used instead.  Actions are evaluated in the order that
   they appear in the XML file.  Once an action is triggered by a label,
   the disposition defined in the "disp" attribute is assigned to the
   label and no other actions are evaluated for that label.

   The goal of the Label Generation Rules is to identify all labels and
   variant labels and to assign them disposition values.  These
   dispositions are then fed into a further process that ultimately
   implements all aspects of policy.  To allow this specification to be
   used with the widest range of policies, the permissible values for
   the "disp" attribute are neither defined nor restricted.
   Nevertheless a set of commonly used disposition values is
   RECOMMENDED.  (See Section 6.3)

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

6.1.  The match and not-match Attributes

   A "match" or "not-match" attribute specify a rule that must be
   matched or not matched as a condition for triggering an action.  Only
   a single rule may be named as the value of a "match" or "not-match"
   attribute.  Because rules may be composed of other rules, this
   restriction to a single attribute value does not impose any
   limitation on the contexts that can trigger an action.

   An action may contain a "match" or a "not-match" attribute, but not
   both.  An action without any attributes is triggered by all labels
   unconditionally.  For a very simple LGR, the following action would
   allocate all labels that match the repertoire:

       <action disp="allocatable" />

   Since rules are evaluated for all labels, whether they are the
   original label or computed by permuting the defined and valid variant
   mappings for the label's code points, actions based on matching or
   not matching a rule may be triggered for both original and variant
   labels, but they the rules are not affected by the disposition
   attributes of the variant mappings.  To trigger any actions base on
   these dispositions requires the use additional optional attributes
   for actions described next.

6.2.  Actions with Variant Type Triggers

6.2.1.  The all-, any- and only-variants Attributes

   An action may contain one of the optional attributes "any-variant",
   "all-variants", or "only-variants" defining triggers based on variant
   types.  The permitted value for these attributes consists of one or
   more variant type values, separated by spaces.  When a variant label
   is generated, these variant type values are compared to the set of
   type values on the variant mappings used to generate the particular
   variant label (see Section 7).

   Any single match may trigger an action that contains an "any-variant"
   attribute, while for an "all-variants" or "only-variants" attribute,
   the variant type for all variant code points must match one or
   several of the type values specified in the attribute to trigger the
   action.  There is no requirement that the entire list of variant type
   values be matched, as long as all variant code points match at least
   one of the values.

   An "only-variants" attribute will trigger the action only if all code
   points of the variant label have variant mappings from the original

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   code points.  In other words, the label contains no original code
   points other than those with a reflexive mapping (see Section 4.3.4).

        <char cp="0078" comment="x" />
           <var cp="0078" type="allocatable" comment="reflexive" />
           <var cp="0079" type="blocked" />
       <char cp="0079"  comment="y"/>
           <var cp="0078" type="allocatable" />
       . . .
       <action disp="blocked" any-variant="blocked" />
       <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="allocatable" />
       <action disp="some-type" any-variant="allocatable" />

   In the example above, the label "xx" would have variant labels "xx",
   "xy", "yx" and "yy".  The first action would result in blocking any
   variant label containing "y", because the variant mapping from "x" to
   "y" is of type "blocked", triggering the "any-variant" condition.
   Because in this example "x" has a reflexive variant mapping to itself
   of type "allocatable" the original label "xx" has a reflexive variant
   "xx" that would trigger the "only_variants" condition on the second

   A label "yy" would have the variants "xy", "yx" and "xx".  Because
   the variant mapping from "y" to "x" is of type "allocatable" and a
   mapping from "y" to "y" is not defined, the labels "xy" and "yx"
   trigger the "any-variant" condition on the third label.  The variant
   "xx", being generated using the mapping from "y" to "x" of type
   "allocatable", would trigger the "only-variants" condition on the
   section action.  As there is no reflexive variant "yy", the original
   label "yy" cannot trigger any variant type triggers.  However, it
   could still trigger an action defined as matching or not matching a

   In each action, one variant type trigger may be present by itself or
   in conjunction with an attribute matching or not-matching a rule.  If
   variant triggers and rule-matching triggers are used together, the
   label MUST "match" or respectively "not-match" the specified rule,
   AND satisfy the conditions on the variant type values given by the
   "any-variant", "all-variants", or "only-variants" attribute.

   A useful convention combines the "any-variant" trigger with reflexive
   variant mappings (Section 4.3.4).  This convention is used, for
   example, when multiple LGRs are defined within the same registry and
   for overlapping repertoire.  In some cases, the delegation of a label
   from one LGR must prohibit the delegation of another label in some
   other LGR.  This can be done using a variant of type "blocked" as in

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   this example from an Armenian LGR, where the Armenian, Latin and
   Cyrillic letters all look identical:

       <char cp="0570" comment="Armenian small letter HO">
         <var cp="0068" type="blocked" comment="Latin small letter H" />
         <var cp="04BB" type="blocked"
              comment="Cyrillic small letter SSHA" />

   The issue is that the target code points for these two variants are
   both outside the Armenian repertoire.  By using a reflexive variant
   with the following convention:

       <char cp="0068" comment="not part of repertoire">
         <var cp="0068" type="out-of-repertoire-var"
              comment="reflexive mapping" />
         <var cp="04BB" type="blocked"  />
         <var cp="0570" type="blocked"  />

   and associating this with an action of the form:

       <action disp="invalid" any-variant="out-of-repertoire-var" />

   it is possible to list the symmetric and transitive variant mappings
   in the LGR even where they involve out-of-repertoire code points.  By
   associating the action shown with the special type for these
   reflexive mappings any original labels containing one or more of the
   out-of-repertoire code points are filtered out -- just as if these
   code points had not been listed in the LGR in the first place.
   Nevertheless, they do participate in the permutation of variant
   labels for n-repertoire labels (Armenian in the example), and these
   permuted variants can be used to detect collisions with out-of-
   repertoire labels (see Section 7).

6.2.2.  Example from RFC 3743 Tables

   This section gives an example of using variant type triggers,
   combined with variants with reflexive mappings (Section 4.3.4) to
   achieve LGRs that implement tables like those defined according to
   [RFC3743] where the goal is to allow as variants only labels that
   consist entirely of simplified or traditional variants, in addition
   to the original label.

   Assuming an LGR where all variants have been given suitable "type"
   attributes of "blocked", "simplified", "traditional", or "both",
   similar to the ones discussed in Appendix B.  Given such an LGR, the

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   following example actions evaluate the disposition for the variant

       <action disp="blocked" any-variant="blocked" />
       <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="simplified both" />
       <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="traditional both" />
       <action disp="blocked" all-variants="simplified traditional " />
       <action disp="allocatable" />

   The first action matches any variant label for which at least one of
   the code point variants is of type "blocked".  The second matches any
   variant label for which all of the code point variants are of type
   "simplified" or "both", in other words an all-simplified label.  The
   third matches any label for which all variants are of type
   "traditional" or "both", that is all traditional.  These two actions
   are not triggered by any variant labels containing some original code
   points, unless each of those code points has a variant defined with a
   reflexive mapping (Section 4.3.4).

   The final two actions rely on the fact that actions are evaluated in
   sequence, and that the first action triggered also defines the final
   disposition for a variant label (see Section 6.4).  They further rely
   on the assumption that the only variants with type "both" are also
   reflexive variants.

   Given these assumptions, any remaining simplified or traditional
   variants must then be part of a mixed label, and so are blocked; all
   labels surviving to the last action are original code points only
   (that is the original label).  The example assumes that an original
   label may be a mixed label; if that is not the case, the disposition
   for the last action would be set to "blocked".

   There are exceptions where the assumption on reflexive mappings made
   above does not hold, so this basic scheme needs some refinements to
   cover all cases.  For a more complete example, see Appendix B.

6.3.  Recommended Disposition Values

   The precise nature of the policy action taken in response to a
   disposition and the name of the corresponding "disp" attributes are
   only partially defined here.  It is strongly RECOMMENDED to use the
   following dispositions only with their conventional sense.

   invalid  The resulting string is not a valid label.  This disposition
        may be assigned implicitly, see Section 6.5.  No variant labels
        should be generated from a variant mapping with this type.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   blocked  The resulting string is a valid label, but should be blocked
        from registration.  This would typically apply for a derived
        variant that has is undesirable as having no practical use or
        being confusingly similar to some other label.

   allocatable  The resulting string should be reserved for use by the
        same operator of the origin string, but not automatically
        allocated for use.

   activated  The resulting string should be activated for use.  (This
        is the typical default action if no dispositions are defined and
        is known as a "preferred" variant in [RFC3743])

6.4.  Precedence

   Actions are applied in the order of their appearance in the file.
   This defines their relative precedence.  The first action triggered
   by a label defines the disposition for that label.  To define a
   specific order of precedence, list the actions in the desired order.
   The conventional order of precedence for the actions defined in
   Section 6.3 is "invalid", "blocked", "allocatable", then "activated".
   This default precedence is used for the default actions defined in
   Section 6.6.

6.5.  Implied Actions

   The context rules on code points ("not-when" or "when" rules) carry
   an implied action with a disposition of "invalid" (not eligible).
   These rules are evaluated at the time the code points for a label or
   its variant labels are checked for validity (see Section 7).  In
   other words, they are evaluated before any of the whole-label
   evaluation rules and with higher precedence.  The context rules for
   variant mappings are evaluated when variants are generated and/or
   when variant tables are made symmetric and transitive.  They have an
   implied action with a disposition of "invalid" which means a putative
   variant mapping does not exist whenever the given context matches a
   "not-when" rule or fails to match a "when" rule specified for that
   mapping.  The result of that disposition is that the variant mapping
   is ignored in generating variant labels and the value is therefore
   not accessible to trigger any explicit actions.

   Note that such non-existing variant mapping is different from a
   blocked variant, which is a variant code point mapping that exists
   but results in a label that may not be allocated.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

6.6.  Default Actions

   As described in Section 6 any variant mapping may be given a "type"
   attribute.  An action containing an "any-variant" or "all-variants"
   attribute relates these type values to a resulting disposition for
   the entire variant label.

   If no actions are defined for the standard disposition values of
   "invalid", "blocked", "allocatable" and "activated", then the
   following default actions exist that are shown below in their default
   order of precedence (see Section 6.4).  This default order for
   evaluating dispositions applies only to labels that triggered no
   explicitly defined actions and which are therefore handled by default
   actions.  Default actions have a lower order of precedence than
   explicit actions (see Section 7.3).

   The default actions for variant labels are defined as follows:

       <action disp="invalid" any-variant="invalid"/>
       <action disp="blocked" any-variant="blocked"/>
       <action disp="allocatable" any-variant="allocatable"/>
       <action disp="activated" all-variants="activate"/>

   A final default action sets the disposition to "allocatable" for any
   label matching the repertoire for which no other action has been
   triggered (catch-all).

       <action disp="allocatable" />

7.  Processing a Label against an LGR

7.1.  Determining Eligibility for a Label

   In order to test a specific label for membership in the LGR, a
   consumer of the LGR must iterate through each code point within a
   given label, and test that each code point is a member of the LGR.
   If any code point is not a member of the LGR, the label shall be
   deemed as invalid.

   An individual code point is deemed a member of the LGR when it is
   listed using a "char" element, or is part of a range defined with a
   "range" element, and all necessary condition in any "when" or "not-
   when" attributes are correctly satisfied.

   Alternatively, a code point is also deemed a member of the LGR when
   it forms part of a sequence that corresponds to a sequence listed
   using a "char" element for which the "cp" attribute defines a

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   sequence, and all necessary condition in any "when" or "not-when"
   attributes are correctly satisfied.

   A label must also not trigger any action that results in a
   disposition of "invalid", otherwise it is deemed not eligible.  (This
   step may need to be deferred, until variant code point dispositions
   have been determined).

   For LGRs that contain reflexive variant mappings (defined in
   Section 4.3.4), the final evaluation of eligibility for the label
   must be deferred until variants are generated.  In essence, LGRs that
   use this feature treat the original label as the (identity) variant
   of itself.  For such LGRs, the ordinary iteration over code points
   would generally only exclude a subset of invalid labels, but it could
   be used effectively as a pre-screening.

7.2.  Determining Variants for a Label

   For a given eligible label, the set of variant labels is deemed to
   consist of each possible permutation of original code points and
   substituted code points or sequences defined in "var" elements,
   whereby all "when" and "not-when" attributes are correctly satisfied
   for each "char" or "var" element in the given permutation and all
   applicable whole label evaluation rules are satisfied as follows:

   1.  Create each possible permutation of a label, by substituting each
       code point or code point sequence in turn by any defined variant
       mapping (including any reflexive mappings)

   2.  Apply variant mappings with "when" or "not-when" attributes only
       if the conditions are satisfied; otherwise they are not defined

   3.  Record each of the "type" values on the variant mappings used in
       creating a given variant label in a disposition set; for any
       unmapped code point record the "type" value of any reflexive
       variant (see Section 4.3.4)

   4.  Determine the disposition for each variant label per Section 7.3

   5.  If the disposition is "invalid", remove the label from the set

   6.  If final evaluation of the disposition for the unpermuted label
       per Section 7.3 results in a disposition of "invalid", remove all
       associated variant labels from the set.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

7.3.  Determining a Disposition for a Label or Variant Label

   For a given label (variant or original), its disposition is
   determined by evaluating in order of their appearance all actions for
   which the label or variant label satisfies the conditions.

   1.  For any label, the disposition is given by the value of the
       "disp" attribute for the first action triggered by the label.  An
       action is triggered, if all of the following are true:

       *  the label matches the whole label evaluation rule given in the
          "match" attribute for that action;

       *  the label does not match the whole label evaluation rule given
          in the "not-match" attribute for that action;

       *  any of the recorded variant types for a variant label match
          the types given in the "any-variant" attribute for that

       *  all of the recorded variant types for a variant label match
          the types given in the "all-variants" or "only-variants"
          attribute given for that action;

       *  in case of an "only-variants" attribute, the label contains
          only code points that are the target of applied variant


       *  the action does not contain any "match", "not-match", "any-
          variant", "all-variants", or "only-variants" attributes:

   2.  For any remaining variant label, assign the variant label the
       disposition using the default actions defined in Section 6.6.
       For this step, variant types outside the predefined recommended
       set (see Section 6.3) are ignored.

   3.  For any remaining label, set the disposition to "allocatable".

8.  Conversion to and from Other Formats

   Both [RFC3743] and [RFC4290] provide different grammars for IDN
   tables.  These formats are unable to fully cater for the increased
   requirements of contemporary IDN variant policies.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 44]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   This specification is a superset of functionality provided by these
   IDN table formats, thus any table expressed in those formats can be
   expressed in this format.  Automated conversion can be conducted
   between tables conformant with the grammar specified in each

   For notes on how to translate an RFC 3743-style table, see
   Appendix B.

9.  Media Type

   Transmission of a well-formed LGR in accordance with this
   specification SHOULD be transmitted with a media type of
   "application/lgr+xml".  This media type will signal to an LGR-aware
   client that the content is designed to be interpreted as an LGR.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the following actions from IANA:

10.1.  Media Type Registration

   [TODO: Add Media Type registration details per [RFC7303]]

10.2.  URN Registration

   This document uses a URN to describe the XML namespace in accordance
   with [RFC3688].

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0

   Registrant Contact: See the Authors of this document.

   XML: None.

10.3.  Disposition Registry

   [TODO: Request a registry for managing final dispositions of labels.]

11.  Security Considerations

   If a system that is querying an identifier list (such as a domain
   zone) that uses the rules in this memo, and those rules are not
   implemented correctly, and that system is relying on the rules being
   applied, the system might fail if the rules are not applied in a
   predictable fashion.  This could cause security problems for the
   querying system.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 45]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

12.  References

              DotAsia Organisation, ".ASIA ZH IDN Language Table".

              Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
              "Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation
              Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels".

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,

   [RFC3743]  Konishi, K., Huang, K., Qian, H., and Y. Ko, "Joint
              Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized
              Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for
              Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", RFC 3743,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3743, April 2004,

   [RFC4290]  Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
              Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4290, December 2005,

   [RFC5564]  El-Sherbiny, A., Farah, M., Oueichek, I., and A. Al-Zoman,
              "Linguistic Guidelines for the Use of the Arabic Language
              in Internet Domains", RFC 5564, DOI 10.17487/RFC5564,
              February 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5564>.

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
              September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,

   [RFC7303]  Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7303, July 2014,

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 46]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

              Technology Development for Indian Languages (TDIL)
              Programme, "Devanagari Script Behaviour for Hindi".

   [UAX42]    Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Character Database in XML".

              Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Encoding Stability Policy,
              Property Value Stability".

              Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Version Numbering".

              Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, "WLE

   [XML]      World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language
              (XML) 1.0".

Appendix A.  Example Tables

   The following presents a minimal LGR table defining the lower case
   LDH (letter-digit-hyphen) repertoire and containing no rules or
   metadata elements.  Many simple LGR tables will look quite similar,
   except that they would contain some metadata.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
   <lgr xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0">
       <char cp="002D" comment="HYPHEN (-)" />
       <range first-cp="0030" last-cp="0039"
         comment="DIGIT ZERO - DIGIT NINE" />
       <range first-cp="0061" last-cp="007A"

   The following sample LGR shows a more complete collection of the
   elements and attributes defined in this specification in a somewhat
   typical context.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

   <!-- This example uses a large subset of the features of this
        specification. It does not include every set operator,
        match operator element, or action trigger attribute, their
        use being largely parallel to the ones demonstrated. -->

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 47]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   <lgr xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lgr-1.0">
   <!-- meta element with all optional elements -->
       <version comment="initial version">1</version>
       <scope type="domain">example.com</scope>
       <description type="text/html">
           This language table was developed with the
           <a href="http://swedish.example/">Swedish
           examples institute</a>.
         <reference id="0" comment="the most recent" >The
               Unicode Standard 6.2</reference>
         <reference id="1" >RFC 5892</reference>
         <reference id="2" >Big-5: Computer Chinese Glyph
            and Character Code Mapping Table, Technical Report
            C-26, 1984</reference>
    <!-- the data section describing the repertoire -->
       <!-- single code point "char" element -->
       <char cp="002D" ref="1" comment="HYPHEN" />

       <!-- range elements for contiguous code points,  with tags -->
       <range first-cp="0030" last-cp="0039" ref="1" tag="digit" />
       <range first-cp="0061" last-cp="007A" ref ="1" tag="letter" />

       <!-- code point sequence -->
       <char cp="006C 00B7 006C" comment="catalan middle dot" />

       <!-- alternatively use a when rule -->
       <char cp="00B7" when="catalan-middle-dot" />

        <!-- code point with context rule -->
       <char cp="200D" when="joiner" ref="2" />

       <!-- code points with variants -->
       <char cp="4E16" tag="preferred" ref="0">
         <var cp="4E17" type="blocked" ref="2" />
         <var cp="534B" type="allocatable" ref="2" />

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 48]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <char cp="4E17" ref="0">
         <var cp="4E16" type="allocatable" ref="2" />
         <var cp="534B" type="allocatable" ref="2" />
       <char cp="534B" ref="0">
         <var cp="4E16" type="allocatable" ref="2" />
         <var cp="4E17" type="blocked" ref="2" />

     <!-- Context and whole label rules -->
       <!-- Require the given code point to be between two 006C -->
       <rule name="catalan-middle-dot" ref="0">
               <char cp="006C" />
           <anchor />
               <char cp="006C" />

       <!-- example of a context rule based on property -->
       <class name="virama" property="ccc:9" />
       <rule name="joiner"  ref="1" >
               <class by-ref="virama" />
           <anchor />

       <!-- example of using set operators -->

       <!-- Subtract vowels from letters to get
            consonant, demonstrating the different
            set notations and the difference operator -->
       <difference name="consonants">
            <class comment="all letters">0061-007A</class>
            <class comment="all vowels">
                    0061 0065 0069 006F 0075

        <!-- by using the start and end, rule matches whole label -->
        <rule name="three-or-more-consonants">
            <start />

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 49]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

            <!-- reference the class defined by the difference
                 and require three or more matches -->
            <class by-ref="consonants" count="3+" />
            <end />

       <!-- rule for negative matching -->
       <rule name="non-preferred"
             comment="matches any non-preferred code point">
           <complement comment="non-preferred" >
               <class from-tag="preferred" />

      <!-- actions triggered by matching rules and/or
           variant types -->
       <action disp="consonants"
               match="three-or-more-consonants" />
       <action disp="blocked" any-variant="blocked" />
       <action disp="allocatable" all-variants="allocatable"
               not-match="non-preferred" />

Appendix B.  How to Translate RFC 3743 based Tables into the XML Format

   As a background, the [RFC3743] rules work as follows:

   1.  The Original (requested) label is checked to make sure that all
       the code points are a subset of the repertoire.

   2.  If it passes the check, the Original label is allocatable.

   3.  Generate the all-simplified and all-traditional variant labels
       (union of all the labels generated using all the simplified
       variants of the code points) for allocation.

   To illustrate by example, here is one of the more complicated set of


Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 50]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   The following shows the relevant section of the Chinese language
   table published by the .ASIA registry [ASIA-TABLE].  Its entries


   These are the lines corresponding to the set of variants listed above


   The corresponding data section XML format would look like this:

       <char cp="4E7E">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="both" comment="identity" />
       <var cp="4E81" type="blocked" />
       <var cp="5E72" type="simp" />
       <var cp="5E79" type="blocked" />
       <var cp="69A6" type="blocked" />
       <var cp="6F27" type="blocked" />
       <char cp="4E81">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="trad" />
       <var cp="5E72" type="simp" />
       <var cp="5E79" type="blocked" />
       <var cp="69A6" type="blocked" />
       <var cp="6F27" type="blocked" />
       <char cp="5E72">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="trad"/>
       <var cp="4E81" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="5E72" type="both" comment="identity"/>
       <var cp="5E79" type="trad"/>
       <var cp="69A6" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="6F27" type="blocked"/>
       <char cp="5E79">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="4E81" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="5E72" type="simp"/>
       <var cp="5E79" type="trad" comment="identity"/>
       <var cp="69A6" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="6F27" type="blocked"/>

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 51]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

       <char cp="69A6">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="4E81" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="5E72" type="simp"/>
       <var cp="5E79" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="69A6" type="trad" comment="identity"/>
       <var cp="6F27" type="blocked"/>
       <char cp="6F27">
       <var cp="4E7E" type="simp"/>
       <var cp="4E81" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="5E72" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="5E79" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="69A6" type="blocked"/>
       <var cp="6F27" type="trad" comment="identity"/>

   Here the simplified variants have been given a type of "simp", the
   traditional variants one of "trad" and all other ones are given

   Because some variant mappings show in more than one column, while the
   XML format allows only a single type value, they have been given the
   type of "both".

   Note that some variant mappings map to themselves (identity), that is
   the mapping is reflexive (see Section 4.3.4).  In creating the
   permutation of all variant labels, these mappings have no effect,
   other than adding a value to the variant type list for the variant
   label containing them.

   In the example so far, all of the entries with type="both" are also
   mappings where source and target are identical.  That is, they are
   reflexive mappings as defined in Section 4.3.4.

   Given a label "U+4E7E U+4E81", the following labels would be ruled
   allocatable under [RFC3743] based on how that standard is commonly
   implemented in domain registries:

       Original label:     U+4E7E U+4E81
       Simplified label 1: U+4E7E U+5E72
       Simplified label 2: U+5E72 U+5E72
       Traditional label:  U+4E7E U+4E7E

   However, if allocatable labels were generated simply by a straight
   permutation of all variants with type other than type="blocked" and

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 52]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   without regard to the simplified / traditional variants, we would end
   up with an extra allocatable label of "U+5E72 U+4E7E".  This label is
   comprised of a both Simplified Chinese character and a Traditional
   Chinese code point and therefore shouldn't be allocatable.

   To more fully resolve the dispositions requires several actions to be
   defined as described in Section 6.2.2 which will override the default
   actions from Section 6.6.  After blocking all labels that contain a
   variant with type "blocked", these actions will set to allocatable
   labels based on the following variant types: "simp", "trad" and
   "both".  Note that these variant types do not directly relate to
   dispositions for the variant label, but that the actions will resolve
   them to the standard dispositions on labels, to with "blocked" and

   To resolve label dispositions requires five actions to be defined (in
   the rules section of this document) these actions apply in order and
   the first one triggered, defines the disposition for the label.  The
   actions are:

   1.  block all variant labels containing at least one blocked variant.

   2.  allocate all labels that consist entirely of variants that are
       "simp" or "both"

   3.  also allocate all labels that are entirely "trad" or "both"

   4.  block all surviving labels containing any one of the dispositions
       "simp" or "trad" or "both" because they are now known to be part
       of an undesirable mixed simplified/traditional label

   5.  allocate any remaining label; the original label would be such a

   The rules declarations would be represented as:

       <!--Action elements - order defines precedence-->
       <action disp="blocked"     any-variant="blocked" />
       <action disp="allocatable"  only-variants="simp both" />
       <action disp="allocatable"  only-variants="trad both" />
       <action disp="blocked"     any-variant="simp trad" />
       <action disp="allocatable"  comment="catch-all" />

   Up to now, variants with type "both" have occurred only associated
   with reflexive variant mappings.  The "action" elements defined above

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 53]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   rely on the assumption that this is always the case.  However,
   consider the following set of variants:


   The corresponding XML would be:

       <char cp="62E0">
       <var cp="636E" type="both" comment="both, but not reflexive" />
       <var cp="64DA" type="blocked" />
       <char cp="636E">
       <var cp="636E" type="simp" comment="reflexive, but not both" />
       <var cp="64DA" type="trad" />
       <var cp="62E0" type="blocked" />
       <char cp="64DA">
       <var cp="636E" type="simp" />
       <var cp="64DA" type="trad" comment="reflexive" />
       <var cp="62E0" type="blocked" />

   To make such variant sets work requires a way to selectively trigger
   an action based on whether a variant type is associated with an
   identity or reflexive mapping, or is associated with an ordinary
   variant mapping.  This can be done by adding a prefix "r-" to the
   "type" attribute on reflexive variant mappings.  For example the
   "trad" for code point U+64DA in the preceding figure would become

   With the dispositions prepared in this way, only a slight
   modification to the actions is needed to yield the correct set of
   allocatable labels:

   <action disp="blocked" any-variant="blocked" />
   <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="simp r-simp both r-both" />
   <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="trad r-trad both r-both" />
   <action disp="blocked" all-variants="simp trad both" />
   <action disp="allocatable" />

   The first three actions get triggered by the same labels as before.

   The fourth action blocks any label that combines an original code
   point with any mix of ordinary variant mappings; however no labels
   that are a combination of only original code points (code points
   having either no variant mappings or a reflexive mapping) would be

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 54]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   affected.  These are the original labels and they are allocated in
   the last action.

   Using this scheme of assinging types to ordinary and reflexive
   variants, all RFC 3743-style tables can be converted to XML.  By
   defining a set of actions as outlined above, the LGR will yield the
   correct set of allocatable variants: all variants consisting
   completely of variant code points preferred for simplified or
   traditional, respectively, will be allocated, as will be the original
   label.  All other variant labels will be blocked.

Appendix C.  Indic Syllable Structure Example

   In LGRs for Indic scripts it may be desirable to restrict valid
   labels to sequences of valid Indic syllables, or aksharas.  This
   appendix gives a sample set of rules designed to enforce this

   An example of a BNF from for an akshara which has been published in
   "Devanagari Script Behavior for Hindi" [TDIL-HINDI].  The rules for
   ther languages and scripts used in India are expected to be generally

   For Hindi, the BNF has the form:



   V    (upper case) is any independent vowel

   m    is any vowel modifier (Devanagari Anusvara, Visarga, and

   C    is any consonant (with inherent vowel)

   N    is Nukta

   H    is a Halant (or Virama)

   v    (lower case) is any dependent vowel sign (matra)

   {}   encloses items which may be repeated one or more times

   [ ]  encloses items which may or may not be present

   |    separates items, out of which only one can be present

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 55]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

   By using the Unicode property "InSC" or "Indic_Syllabic_Category"
   which corresponds rather directly to the classification of characters
   in the BNF above, we can translate the BNF into a set of WLE rules
   matching the definition of an akshara.

       <!--Character Class Definitions go here-->
       <class name="halant" property="InSC:Virama" />
       <union name="vowel-modifier">
         <class property="InSC:Visarga" />
         <class property="InSC:Bindu" comment="includes anusvara" />
       <!--Whole label evaluation and Context rules go here-->
       <rule name="consonant-with-optional-nukta">
           <class by-ref="InSC:Consonant" />
           <class by-ref="InSC:Nukta"  count="0:1"/>
       <rule name="independent-vowel-with-optional-modifier">
           <class by-ref="InSC:Vowel_Independent" />
           <class by-ref="vowel-modifier"  count="0:1" />
       <rule name="optional-dependent-vowel-with-opt-modifier" >
         <class by-ref="InSC:Vowel_Dependent" count="0:1" />
         <class by-ref="vowel-modifier" count="0:1"  />
       <rule name="consonant-cluster">
         <rule count="0+">
           <rule by-ref="consonant-with-optional-nukta" />
           <class by-ref="halant" />
         <rule by-ref="consonant-with-optional-nukta" />
           <class by-ref="halant" />
           <rule by-ref="optional-dependent-vowel-with-opt-modifier" />
       <rule name="akshara">
           <rule by-ref="independent-vowel-with-optional-modifier" />
           <rule by-ref="consonant-cluster" />
       <rule name="WLE-akshara-or-other" comment="series of one or
           more aksharas, possibly alternating with other types of
           code points such as digits">
         <start />
         <choice count="1+">
           <class property="InSC:other"  />

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 56]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

           <rule by-ref="akshara"  />
         <end />
       <!--Action elements go here - order defines precedence-->
       <action disp="invalid" not-match="WLE-akshara-or-other" />

   With the rules and classes as defined above, the final action assigns
   a disposition of "invalid" to all labels that are not composed of a
   sequence of well-formed aksharas, optionally interspersed with other
   characters, perhaps digits, for example.

   The relevant Unicode property could be replicated by tagging
   repertoire values directly in the LGR which would remove the
   dependency on any specific version of the Unicode Standard.

   Generally, dependent vowels may only follow consonant expressions,
   however, for some scripts, like Bengali, the Unicode standard
   supports sequences of dependent vowels or their application on
   independent vowels.  This makes the definition of akshara less

   It is possible to reduce the complexity of these rules by defining
   alternate rules which simply define the permissible pair-wise context
   of adjacent code points by character class--such as the rule that a
   Halant can only follow a (nuktated) consonant.  (See the example in

Appendix D.  RelaxNG Compact Schema


Appendix E.  Acknowledgements

   This format builds upon the work on documenting IDN tables by many
   different registry operators.  Notably, a comprehensive language
   table for Chinese, Japanese and Korean was developed by the "Joint
   Engineering Team" [RFC3743] that is the basis of many registry
   policies; and a set of guidelines for Arabic script registrations
   [RFC5564] was published by the Arabic-language community.

   Contributions that have shaped this document have been provided by
   Francisco Arias, Mark Davis, Paul Hoffman, Nicholas Ostler, Thomas
   Roessler, Steve Sheng, Michel Suignard, Andrew Sullivan, Wil Tan and
   John Yunker.

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 57]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

Appendix F.  Editorial Notes

   This appendix to be removed prior to final publication.

F.1.  Known Issues and Future Work

   These are being tracked at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lager/trac/

F.2.  Change History

   draft-davies-idntables-00  Initial draft.

   draft-davies-idntables-01  Add an XML Namespace, and fix other XML
        nits.  Add support for sequences of code points.  Improve on
        consistently using Unicode nomenclature.

   draft-davies-idntables-02  Add support for validity periods.

   draft-davies-idntables-03  Incorporate requirements from the Label
        Generation Ruleset Procedure for the DNS Root Zone.  These
        requirements include a detailed grammar for specifying whole-
        label variants, and the ability to explicitly declare of the
        actions associated with a specific variant.  The document also
        consistently applies the term "Label Generation Ruleset", rather
        than "IDN table", to reflect the policy term now being used to
        describe these.

   draft-davies-idntables-04  Support reference information per
        [RFC3743].  Update description in response to feedback.  Extend
        the context rules to "char" elements and allow for inverse
        matching ("not-when").  Extend the description of label
        processing and implied actions, and allow for actions that
        reference disposition attributes on any or all variant mappings
        used in the generation of a variant label.

   draft-davies-idntables-05  Change the name of the "disposition"
        attribute to "disp".  Add comment attribute on version and
        reference elements.  Allow empty "cp" attributes in char
        elements to support expressing symmetric mapping of null
        variants.  Describe use of variants that map identically.
        Clarify how actions are triggered, in particular based on
        variant dispositions, as well as description of default actions.
        Revise description of processing a label and its variants.  Move
        example table at the head of appendices.  Add "only-variants"
        attribute.  Change "name" attribute to "by-ref" attribute for
        referencing named classes and rules.  Change "not" to
        "complement".  Remove "match" attribute on rules as redundant if

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 58]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

        "start" and "end" are supported.  Rename "match" element to
        "anchor" as better fitting it's function and removing confusion
        with both the "match" attribute on actions as well as the
        generic term Match Operator.  Augmented the examples relevant to

   draft-davies-idntables-06  Extend the discussion of reflexive
        variants and their use; includes update of the appendix on
        converting tables in the style of [RFC3743].  Improve
        description of tagging and clarify that it doesn't apply to
        sequences.  Specify that root zone uses ".".  Add an appendix
        with an Indic Syllable Structure example.  Extend count
        attribute to allow maximal counts.

   draft-davies-idntables-07  Change "byref" to "by-ref".  Add list of
        recommended properties.  Change "location" to "positional" for
        collective name of start/end match operators.  Use from-tag
        instead of by-ref for tag-based classes.  Made optional or
        mutually exclusive nature of some attributes more explicit.
        Allowing "comment" attributes on all child elements of "rules"
        except "char" and "range" elements used as child elements of
        "class".  Recast the design goals and requirements at the start
        of the document.  Reword aspects of the document to make it
        clear the format's application is not limited only to domain

   draft-davies-idntables-08  Change "domain" to scope with
        type="domain".  Reword in several places for clarity.  Flesh out
        note on security.  Change "disp" to "type" for variants, to mark
        that these attributes do not necessarily correspond one-to-one
        to variant label dispositions.  Add example of variant type
        triggers.  Remove "long form" of class definition.

   draft-davies-idntables-09  Grammatical updates, clarity improvements.
        Altered some DNS-specific terminology.

   draft-davies-idntables-10  Added convention for out-of-repertoire
        variants, additional examples of when rules in the context of
        symmetry, isolated minor copy editing.  Use a URN as the XML
        namespace (provisional).  Specify a media type for the file.

   draft-ietf-lager-specification-00  Update to reflect adoption as a
        work item by the IETF LAGER working group.

   draft-ietf-lager-specification-01  Update to reflect decisions in
        first interim meeting of IETF LAGER working group.  Correcting a
        number of typos, added section on contextual conditions,
        clarified l anguage on how actions are triggered, and changed

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 59]

Internet-Draft      Label Generation Rulesets in XML      September 2015

        "block", "allocate" and "activate" to "blocked", "allocatable".
        and "activated" .  Other minor changes.

Authors' Addresses

   Kim Davies
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   12025 Waterfront Drive
   Los Angeles, CA  90094

   Phone: +1 310 301 5800
   Email: kim.davies@icann.org
   URI:   http://www.icann.org/

   Asmus Freytag
   ASMUS Inc.

   Email: asmus@unicode.org

Davies & Freytag          Expires March 4, 2016                [Page 60]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/