[arabic-vip] Initial list of issues and questions

[Baher Esmat]

On 6/20/11 9:28 AM, "Siavash Shahshahani" <shahshah at irnic.ir> wrote:

> Regarding the presence of digits in TLD I got conflicting results:
> 1. I asked a couple of registry operators, both said that the only
> restriction (for ASCII) is that the TLD not start with a digit. But this
> may be from the older version guidebook because:
> 2. In the new Guidebook(redlined version), Module 2, p.2-11, article
> 1.2.1, it says that ASCII label must consist entirely of letters. Also on
> page 2-12, article 2.1.5, it says that all characters within the label must
> have the same directional property (thus eliminating Hindi-Arabic digits
> which are L-to-R within the R-to-L script).
> Maybe Baher could ask Kurt Pritz for an authoritative clarification.

I double checked and as per the guidebook digits in TLDs are not allowed.

Baher

> Siavash 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:50:46 -0700, "Dr.Sarmad Hussain"
> <sarmad at cantab.net>
> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> As per the discussion in the meeting on 18th June, we met again on 19th
>> June
>> to discuss the issues.  Here is a summary of our initial discussion for
>> further feedback:
>> 
>> 1.  Extra normalization - composed and decomposed forms not considered
>> equivalent by Unicode
>> 2. Optional combining marks - aerab (e.g. fatha, damma, kasra, shadda,
>> etc.)
>> 3. Conflated combining marks - alif, vao, yeh, hah with and without
> hamza;
>> alif with and without madda, etc.
>> 4. Two characters/unicodes with same shape in a particular position
>> (initial, medial, final or isolated), e.g. arabic and persian kaf; yay;
>> etc.
>> 5. Two characters/unicodes with similar shape; e.g. swash and other kaf;
>> tay
>> marbuta and hay, etc.
>> 6. ZWNJ with characters which do not change shape perceptibly
>> 7. mechanisms for documenting these cases for eventual comparisons to
>> determine variant TLDs
>> 
>> Following issues were pended for consideration until the associated
>> questions are responded by ICANN staff and consultants:
>> 
>> 1. Confusion caused by digits - Question: Though digits are relevant for
>> labels, are they relevant issue for TLDs?
>> 2. Specification of "language" table - Question: The way the table is
>> defined in the documents circulated by ICANN in the context of IDN
> Variants
>> project may not be relevant for Arabic, but should the team consider
>> defining the proper table format an issue? How is the concept of table
>> relevant for TLDs (as it is normally not used for catering to labels at
> the
>> top level).
>> 3. Blocking, reserving, etc. are strategies being discussed in the
>> documents
>> circulated by ICANN. Question: How are they related to the variant
> issues?
>>  Are these strategies part of the problem or part of the solution for
>> variants?  If latter, should they be discussed at this stage of the
> project
>> where only issues are being considered?
>> 
>> The following sources of variations would not be considered:
>> 
>> 1. Homophones
>> 2. Bidirectional issues (as they are not relevant for a TLD, but to the
>> complete domain name)
>> 3. writing style - as this is largely a font issue
>> 
>> 
>> We look forward to the feedback on all the items.  We request feedback
> on
>> the second set of questions by ICANN staff and consultants.
>> 
>> regards,
>> Sarmad