<div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/27 Roozbeh Pournader <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roozbeh@gmail.com">roozbeh@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Let's face it: this thread is not about Tatweel. It's about the decision process in the group.<br>
<font color="#888888"> Roozbeh</font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dear Roozbeh,</div><div>To be precise, the thread is about the area of responsibility of IETF through the decision process that must apply on a small question. IDNA is to support languages through the Internet. This group is competent about internet support. It is not about languages. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- languages requires linguistics experts and MUST decide by consensus.</div><div>- internet technological support requires engineers and MAY decide by rough consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>This WG is established to support non-LDH in domain names. All it can say is either:</div>
<div>- this codepoint is an exception which hurts the network stability, here is why, here is what we did to try to minimize the number of exceptions.<br></div><div>- the IDNA architecture does not permit to support the following linguistic requirements (such as French majuscules).</div>
<div><br></div><div>But it cannot say: we engineers decide not to support this codepoint for linguistic reasons. The same linguists cannot say: we linguists decide that the DNS will support UTF8.</div><div><br></div><div>
<br></div><div>So, may be can we rephrase the questions as follows:</div><div><br></div><div>- Do you think that disallowing code points at protocol level is a vital necessity for the Internet Y/N ?<br></div><div>- Why ?</div>
<div>- Is TATWEEL such a code point Y/N ?</div><div>- Why (not considering graphic confusability which is outside the scope of this WG)?</div><div>- if you answered Yes to one of the question above, this means that you consider the IETF as a multilinguist authority. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Rough consensus on this non-linguistic IETF question will decide of the technical infeasibility of the TATWEEL support.<br></div><div>Would this be acceptable to you?</div><div>jfc</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div>