[Idna-arabicscript] Call for votes for TATWEEL
vint at google.com
Fri Mar 27 15:15:43 CET 2009
Jefsey, it is not up to you to specify how the IDNABIS working group
does its work. Moreover, the working group has the option to consult
with language experts and, in fact, is listening to the Arabic
Language working group for input; it is also listening to the Korean
language experts, the CJK JET group and others. It is unfair for you
to characterize IDNABIS as purely engineering. We have the head of the
Unicode consortium actively involve in the working and he has access
to a significant range of experts.
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
vint at google.com
On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:57 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> 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.
> 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 consensus.
> This WG is established to support non-LDH in domain names. All it
> can say is either:
> - 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
> - 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?
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update