consensus Call: TATWEEL

[Erik van der Poel]

I'd like to elaborate a little bit on my position on Tatweel, given
the email below, and the discussions about mapping yesterday.

Although mapping Tatweel to "nothing" (i.e. deleting) is certainly one
of the alternatives, I think we should consider simply disallowing
Tatweel. The reason is as follows.

If we map Tatweel to nothing, IDNA2003 apps and new apps will try to
resolve different domain names. E.g. old and new browsers will go to
different places.

If we disallow Tatweel in the input to the mapping function (or map
Tatweel to Tatweel and then prohibit Tatweel in the input to the
Punycode function), new apps will simply fail to lookup the domain
name. This would eventually encourage e.g. HTML file maintainers to
remove Tatweels from domain names in hrefs and the like.

Erik

2009/3/25 Waleed Oransa <woransa at gmail.com>:
> I vote with Yes for disallow Tatweel
> and if possible a recommendation that browsers removed the Tatweel from the
> domain name and then send it without it.
> So if Tatweel is used as in the following:  الجــــزيرة .. it should be
> changed to الجزيرة automatically by the browser.
> The reason for disallowing Tatweel (beside what already mentioned by others)
> that Tatweel has no phonetic, so if we have a word that doesn't
> contain Tatweel and another one contains Tatweel, both words will have the
> same pronunciation.
> Waleed Oransa
> IBM Egypt
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
> wrote:
>>
>> YES (ie make it DISALLOWED)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>