U+303B VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Jul 15 23:06:10 CEST 2009


Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> I agree with Wil Tan about this.
>
> The Vertical Kana repeat marks (3031..3035) make no sense
> in IDN's, particularly since they will certainly be forced
> into horizontal display contexts, where they could accomplish
> nothing but introduce mischief and confusion.
>   

This, "... since they will certainly be forced into horizontal display 
contexts ..." is just what I ment when attempting to discuss what I 
called at the time (SF +/- some) the "linearization" of descending 
script, Arabic script in particular. I'm also concerned about 
non-Cyrillic Mongolian, which is vertical, for similar reasons.

The point I was attempting to make earlier (SF +/-), circa TATWEEL, is 
that a requirement for single baseline script doesn't arise from a 
registrar requirement. It may arise elsewhere, but if we can't state 
where the requirement comes from, it doesn't exist, and where a vertical 
script uses vertical character sequence conventions, such as iteration 
marks, the rational for action can't be "it doesn't work horizontally".

I'm not disagreeing with Wil, and possibly Ken, only noting concern 
about a preference for display contexts.

Eric
> As for U+303B VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK, it is
> also useless in IDN's, and I don't think it is helpful or
> pertinent to clutter up the CONTEXTO rules in the appendix A
> listing trying to come up with an appropriate rule for this.
>
> As for attempting to stand on principle that IDNA should not
> categorize characters as DISALLOWED unless shown to be
> harmful, we already crossed that bridge a long time ago
> by ruling 1000's of symbols as DISALLOWED on general
> principle, even though they are less problematical than
> these vertical display characters.
>
> And finally, there is no good reason whatsoever why U+303B
> should be CONTEXTO (and have that stand as some kind of
> precedent that we can't reverse to make it DISALLOWED
> in the table), when all these other, more problematical
> vertical form characters are sitting in the table as PVALID
> and not CONTEXTO. So from the point of view of
> consistency and minimal confusion for implementers,
> the best choice is to make the lot DISALLOWED and be done
> with it -- *particularly* if we agree that:
>
> "Sane registry policy everywhere will still probably set this to
> registry-disallowed."
>
> --Ken
>
>   
>> I think the following should be DISALLOWED:
>>
>> U+3031: Lm: VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK
>> U+3032: Lm: VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK
>> U+3033: Lm: VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK UPPER HALF
>> U+3034: Lm: VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK UPPER HALF
>> U+3035: Lm: VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK LOWER HALF
>> U+303B: Lm: VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK
>>
>> Mainly because U+3033 looks like protocol character (forward slash)
>> and thus harmful IMO. Since this is a group of characters with related
>> usage, and that Yoneya-san, Martin Dürst and John suggested that they
>> should be disallowed:
>>   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-April/004398.html
>>
>> =wil
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>   




More information about the Idna-update mailing list