Idna-update Digest, Vol 27, Issue 100

Mon Mar 30 02:00:55 CEST 2009

Thanks Sarmad, this seems to be the prevailing thought.

Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com

On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Sarmad Hussain wrote:

> We have developed numerous fonts for Urdu and other Pakistani  
> languages, in
> Nastalique, Naskh, and Riqa styles (Nafees family of fonts) and  
> Tatweel is
> not used either for Nastalique style fonts (with diagonal baseline)  
> or with
> Naskh and Riqa style fonts (with horizontal baseline).  Tatweel  
> could used
> as a justification tool for Arabic script (though even that is not
> required), thus not necessary for font development.  It is not a  
> character,
> but just an invented formatting character.  It has no linguistic  
> reality or
> necessity.
>
> Regards,
> Sarmad
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of
> idna-update-request at alvestrand.no
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Idna-update Digest, Vol 27, Issue 100
>
> Send Idna-update mailing list submissions to
> 	idna-update at alvestrand.no
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	idna-update-request at alvestrand.no
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	idna-update-owner at alvestrand.no
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Idna-update digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: consensus Call: TATWEEL (Martin J. D?rst)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:12:53 +0900
> From: "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> Subject: Re: consensus Call: TATWEEL
> To: Ebw <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> Cc: Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>,	"idna-update at alvestrand.no"
> 	<idna-update at alvestrand.no>,	John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
> Message-ID: <49CF2D85.7010206 at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> I understand you are concerned that Tatweel might be needed for the
> ability to render Arabic script in a falling rather than horizontal
> style, and that there might be other 'characters' needed for high-
> quality rendering.
>
> As far as I understand from Tom Milo, a top expert in Arabic  
> typography
> implementations, really good Arabic typography requires a lot of
> contextual rules. But he never mentioned the Tatweel.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I actually get the impression that
> the Tatweel is very much linked to horizontal/linear Arabic rendering,
> and not of much use if any for falling or other higher-level kinds
> of renderings. Even for horizontal rendering, the Tatweel is nothing
> more than a crude clutch, as Ken already said.
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
> On 2009/03/23 8:25, Ebw wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> It is clear from your response that you didn't see where my concern
>> lies. If, in our choices of allowable code points, we constrain  
>> Arabic
>> (and Farsi and ...) to choices which look correct to Latin
>> expectations, non-descending rather than descending, inaesthetically
>> dense rather than combining and extended, to "2nd gen" computer  
>> Arabic
>> (and ...) -- then we may be "solving" one problem by creating  
>> another.
>>
>> The choice of which "harm" to choose is easy if all we know is one
>> "harm", and easier when that "harm" is "spoofing" (or last year's
>> child porn or the year before that's Arab terrorist or the year  
>> before
>> that's WMD), but we do have the choice to ask if the people who  
>> create
>> the basic tools for writing Arabic (and ...) need what we are asked  
>> to
>> ban, and because of our shared Latin (and other scripts lacking one  
>> or
>> both of the properties, descent and vertical and horizontal
>> interaction) limitations, simply fail to appreciate.
>>
>> If you really do think this is "bold" and "italic" you simply aren't
>> getting it.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, painfully.
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2009, at 3:41 PM, John C Klensin<klensin at jck.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --On Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:43 -0500 Ebw
>>> <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> I propose we ask modern (3rd gen) Arabic (and Farsi, etc)
>>>> typographers   for guidance. I'm not certain the UTC
>>>> motivation is sufficient, nor am   I certain the ASIWG, the
>>>> process of which I find insufficiently   trasparent, and
>>>> unacceptably vendor-specific, hasn't overlooked use in   their
>>>> excessively narrow construction of text labels as "necessary
>>>> words" with the excessive constraints arise from the incorrect
>>>> statement of purpose.
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> "Consult typographers" sets off an alarm for me.   Unicode isn't
>>> supposed to be about typography and certainly domain names
>>> historically have not been.   If we do get ourselves into a
>>> situation in which we are consulting typographers, don't we need
>>> to go back and examine the list of Unicode compatibility
>>> characters  --many of which seem to be about typographic and
>>> other subtle variations on base characters -- to figure out
>>> which ones the typographers think should be distinguishable
>>> characters (not mapped or prohibited)?
>>>
>>> For example, I would certainly like boldface and italics in my
>>> domain names, even though I recognize that they would cause far
>>> more confusion and problems than they could possibly be worth.
>>> I'd also like to be able to utilize the full range of variations
>>> and artistry in, e.g., Arabic and Chinese calligraphy.  And I'd
>>> like a pony :-(
>>>
>>> Vint,
>>>
>>> Yes. I agree with disallowing Tatweel and its N'Ko counterpart.
>>> I do not believe that we should disallow one and not the other.
>>>
>>>    john
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
> End of Idna-update Digest, Vol 27, Issue 100
> ********************************************
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus  
> signature
> database 3811 (20090129) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update