[Idna-arabicscript] Call for votes for TATWEEL

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Mar 27 14:57:30 CET 2009

2009/3/27 Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh at gmail.com>

> Let's face it: this thread is not about Tatweel. It's about the decision
> process in the group.
>  Roozbeh

Dear Roozbeh,
To be precise, the thread is about the area of responsibility of IETF
through the decision process that must apply on a small question. IDNA is to
support languages through the Internet. This group is competent about
internet support. It is not about languages.

- languages requires linguistics experts and MUST decide by consensus.
- internet technological support requires engineers and MAY decide by rough

This WG is established to support non-LDH in domain names. All it can say is
- this codepoint is an exception which hurts the network stability, here is
why, here is what we did to try to minimize the number of exceptions.
- the IDNA architecture does not permit to support the following linguistic
requirements (such as French majuscules).

But it cannot say: we engineers decide not to support this codepoint for
linguistic reasons. The same linguists cannot say: we linguists decide that
the DNS will support UTF8.

So, may be can we rephrase the questions as follows:

- Do you think that disallowing code points at protocol level is a vital
necessity for the Internet Y/N ?
- Why ?
- Is TATWEEL such a code point Y/N ?
- Why (not considering graphic confusability which is outside the scope of
this WG)?
- if you answered Yes to one of the question above, this means that you
consider the IETF as a multilinguist authority.

Rough consensus on this non-linguistic IETF question will decide of the
technical infeasibility of the TATWEEL support.
Would this be acceptable to you?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090327/a28050e2/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list