consensus Call: TATWEEL

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Mar 24 01:44:09 CET 2009


Vint,
I think Alireza expresses a position that linguistic TLD Managers and
Registry Managers can only share. The IDNA proposition as it turns to become
does not offer  the e-empowerment capacity languages desserve, users expect,
and standards and Gov. demand.

The same as I consider that French support must be discussed by
authoritative French linguists and ISO standard organization (AFNOR), I can
only trust the Arabic language experts who formed a dedicated mailing list.
The same as trust CJK experts to discuss their languages.

If DISALLOW means "DISALLOW for the xn-- IDNA2008 English ASCII users
version", it is to the English speakers to decide.

However, we must accept that it means that linguistic TLD project Managers
will start considering their own "x.--" versions (what this WG seems to push
for) or extension (what I plea for).

Since I am not sure that the people who answered YES realized this, I will
answer NO.

Not NO about a specifc code point I never used in my life, but for the
fundamental position of this WG to clearly be spelled out before:

- either IDN2008 is an English ASCII oriented version which does not
consider interoperability with other linguistic communities solutions (?)
- or a default, which wants to support interoperability with other lingustic
community solutions (?).

jfc





2009/3/23 Alireza Saleh <saleh at nic.ir>

> No,
>
> I think this is the registry  choice to make it DISALLOW.
> if you search Arabic-script you will  find more examples that are not
> essential for language and may also be considered that they are only for
> typography reasons. These codes are also PVALID under IDNA2008 policy.
> I'm sure if the group put them for vote they will also have the same
> ending as Tatweel ( Consider U+0651). In that situation I suggest to
> disallow all characters in all scripts and then choose a list of allowed
> characters among them. The name of the protocol could be changed to IDNA
> for English users.
>
> Alireza
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > My apologies, could you reissue this call for both characters? I've
> > confirmed that they share the same characteristics.
> >
> > |U+0640 <http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=0640>|
> > ( ‎ـ‎ ) ARABIC TATWEEL
> > |U+07FA <http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=07FA>|
> > ( ‎ߺ‎ ) NKO LAJANYALAN
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:32, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com
> > <mailto:vint at google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Based on the on-line exchanges, it appears to me that the general
> >     consensus is to ban TATWEEL by exception (ie. make it DISALLOWED).
> >
> >     Please respond with:
> >
> >     YES (ie make it DISALLOWED)
> >
> >     NO (ie leave it PVALID)
> >
> >     OTHER: <explain what you propose>
> >
> >     I will tally the responses arriving by April 4, midnight, EDT.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Vint Cerf
> >     Google
> >     1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> >     Reston, VA 20190
> >     202-370-5637
> >     vint at google.com <mailto:vint at google.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Idna-update mailing list
> >     Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto: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/20090324/b519cbf9/attachment.htm 


More information about the Idna-update mailing list