consensus Call: TATWEEL
everson at evertype.com
Thu Mar 26 12:21:12 CET 2009
On 26 Mar 2009, at 10:47, Alireza Saleh wrote:
> thanks for the description, but I still don't understand why this
> character has been coded as Arabic-Letter ?
It was named that way back in 8859 time, and the distinctions IDNA is
now making between "letters" and other things was not a apart of the
> and as it is for now then it should be in the protocol.
No, it should NOT. It has no content of its own, and ALL it can do in
a domain name is spoof.
Please ignore the fact that it has a character property of Letter. It
isn't a letter.
> Maybe, in Unicode 5.2 there will be a character that have the same
> characteristics like Tatweel, then we should update the protocol
> documents again.
Fine, if that has to be done, that has to be done.
> Besides, I still don't hear any arguments other than visual confusion.
I haven't heard a single argument FOR using this glyph fragment in a
domain name identifier.
> I'm not arguing for permitting Tatweel as such, what I'm arguing is
> that the way of making decisions should be changed.
More meta-discussion won't help us. Can't we get ON with it?
> If the IDNAbis working group thinks that all these problems
> should be handled at the protocol level, then please go ahead and
> resolve them ALL; there will be a long list of confusions more
> than having Tatweel can be sent to the group. if not, better leave
> all to be resolved at the registry.
I don't believe that it is an either/or situation.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Idna-update