consensus on TATWEEL

LB lbleriot at
Fri Apr 17 12:01:57 CEST 2009

2009/4/17 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at>
> On 2009/04/14 1:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Even though my French composition is no longer any good, I still find
>> it entirely surprising that the TATWEEL character is in any way
>> implicated in French orthography.  I'm pretty sure that in 10 years of
>> instruction in French, I never once encountered the TATWEEL.  Indeed,
>> until the topic came up in this working group, I was entirely unaware
>> of the existence of anything in the universe named TATWEEL.  So I
>> wonder how it is possible that the inclusion of the TATWEEL in the
>> exceptions table to make it DISALLOWED is in any way related to
>> supporting French spelling.
> Of course TATWEEL has no relationship to French spelling :-).

There is no need to be a linguist to accept that what we are talking
about is not _French_ "spelling" but of "spelling". Whether Greek,
German, Arabic or french, it changes nothing: the spelling of the
language is not recorded on the Charter.

Il n'est pas besoin d'être linguiste pour accepter que ce dont nous
parlons n'est pas de _French_ "spelling" mais de "spelling". Qu'il
soit grec, allemand, arabe ou français, cela n'y change rien : le
spelling des langues n'est pas inscrit au Charter.

> Even putting that fact aside, this is an extremely badly picked fight.

Using a consensus on this particular case, greatly help to ask for a
consensus on the violation of the general principle. That's why I
mentioned "tatweel trap" (with reference to the book "the devil
trap"). The IETF has not given authority to this WG to decide on the
spelling of languages.

L'utilisation d'un consensus particulier sur ce cas précis, aide
grandement pour demander un consensus sur la violation du principe
général. C'est pour cela que j'ai parlé de "tatweel trap" (par
référence au livre "the devil trap"). L'IETF n'a pas donné autorité à
ce WG pour décider de l'orthographe des langues.

> While the Arabic script community isn't unanimous,
This means that there is no "overwhelming consensus".
Ce qui signifie qu'il n'y a pas d'"overwhelming consensus"

nobody has claimed that this character is in anyway related to or
required for Arabic script orthography for any language. Also, it is
not required for high-quality Arabic script rendering. The only point
of contention has been "we don't need it, but do we really need to
forbid it?".
> Also, as explained already in more detail by Ken, it is purely an artifact of early computer implementations of the Arabic script, an artifact of a poor, half-baked technical approach to tradition, art, and culture.
> Regards,    Martin.
Please stop the bickering. The Chair asked a list of questions we'll
answer seriously in the day. This topic is serious, it is increasingly
taken outside, as it decides on the unilateral or multilateral nature
of the Internet, and documents the new governance debate in the ISOC /

s'il vous plait, cessons ces chamailleries. Le Chair a posé une liste
de questions, nous y répondrons dans la journée. Ce sujet est sérieux,
il est de plus en plus suivi à l'extérieur, car il décide de la nature
unilatérale ou multilatérale de l'Internet, et documente la nouvelle
gouvernance du débat de l'ISOC/IETF.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list