U+303B VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK

[Vint Cerf]

If we can possibly avoid char by char rules that would be very helpful  
in dealing with updates to Unicode.

I gather these characters don't quite fall into a category that would  
permit algorithmic treatment?

vint


On Jul 15, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update