consensus Call: TATWEEL

John C Klensin klensin at
Sun Mar 22 21:41:35 CET 2009

--On Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:43 -0500 Ebw
<ebw at> wrote:

> I propose we ask modern (3rd gen) Arabic (and Farsi, etc)
> typographers   for guidance. I'm not certain the UTC
> motivation is sufficient, nor am   I certain the ASIWG, the
> process of which I find insufficiently   trasparent, and
> unacceptably vendor-specific, hasn't overlooked use in   their
> excessively narrow construction of text labels as "necessary  
> words" with the excessive constraints arise from the incorrect
>  statement of purpose.


"Consult typographers" sets off an alarm for me.   Unicode isn't
supposed to be about typography and certainly domain names
historically have not been.   If we do get ourselves into a
situation in which we are consulting typographers, don't we need
to go back and examine the list of Unicode compatibility
characters  --many of which seem to be about typographic and
other subtle variations on base characters -- to figure out
which ones the typographers think should be distinguishable
characters (not mapped or prohibited)?

For example, I would certainly like boldface and italics in my
domain names, even though I recognize that they would cause far
more confusion and problems than they could possibly be worth.
I'd also like to be able to utilize the full range of variations
and artistry in, e.g., Arabic and Chinese calligraphy.  And I'd
like a pony :-(


Yes. I agree with disallowing Tatweel and its N'Ko counterpart.
I do not believe that we should disallow one and not the other.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list