U+07FA, NKO LAJANYALAN (was Re: consensus on TATWEEL)

[Alireza Saleh]

Yes I think the WG decided to DISALLOW Tatweel. As I think it shouldn't 
be disallowed from the beginning , and if it is still an open issue can 
we reconsider it again during IDNAbis sessions in Stockholm ?

At that time my reason was, walking character by character through 
Unicode table and making decision on character basis should be kept as 
minimum , and for Tatweel this also could be decided at the registry 
among other issues which are allowed.

Aleez

Vint Cerf wrote:
> I had reached a similar conclusion and I thought I said so on the list  
> but if not,
> it seemed that 95% of the messages were in favor of disallowing this  
> character.
>
> v
>
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>   
>> I concur that the consensus on U+0640 ARABIC TATWEEL was (and probably
>> still is) DISALLOWED.
>>
>> Action Item: PAF.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>>     
>>> Michael said:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> There is one in Mongolian too.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Michael is referring to U+180A MONGOLIAN NIRUGU, which
>>> is another of these stem extenders in a cursive script.
>>>
>>> However, unlike TATWEEL and NKO LAJANYALAN, U+180A
>>> is gc=Po (Punctuation, Other), in part because it also
>>> has another hyphen-like function in Mongolian. Because
>>> it is classed as punctuation, U+180A is already defined
>>> as DISALLOWED for IDNA in idnabis-tables-05.txt. So
>>> there is nothing further in question about U+180A.
>>>
>>> The issue is about explicitly disallowing U+0640 ARABIC TATWEEL
>>> and U+07FA NKO LAJANYALAN, which are gc=Lm, and which
>>> are still classed as PVALID in idnabis-tables-05.txt.
>>> (But which, when we discussed this last, we had consensus
>>> should be DISALLOWED, instead.)
>>>
>>> --Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 14 Jul 2009, at 22:58, Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> This may have slipped through the cracks...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:35, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>>>>> Not yet. I will post a call for consensus on that shortly. V
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Kent Karlsson
>>>>> To: Vint Cerf; idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>>> Sent: Mon Apr 13 01:26:02 2009
>>>>> Subject: Re: consensus on TATWEEL
>>>>> I assume this also goes for U+07FA, NKO LAJANYALAN, which IIUC has
>>>>> the same nature as TATWEEL.
>>>>>
>>>>>    /kent k
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>