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

[Vint Cerf]

Sorry, but the bulk of the email on this subject was in favor of  
disallowing the character.

this is finished business.
vint


On Jul 15, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Marie-France Berny wrote:

> Dear Vint,
> I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. You may want to decide a  
> rough consensus to DISALLOW TATWEEL at protocol level. But there was  
> no  95% support. There is a full france at large discent that was also  
> documented by ASIWG Iranian contributors. However, that discent is  
> based upon good reasons that may be included in final consensus:
>
> - no DISALLOW should be imposed but adopted by the concerned parties  
> and persons. (It would be like disallowing "w" because it could be  
> replaced by "uu" in English).
> - no DISALLOW should be imposed through a MUST
> - no DISALLOW should be imposed at protocol level.
>
> MFBerny
>
>
> 2009/7/15 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090715/7411f964/attachment.htm