[arabic-vip] Initial list of issues and questions

[Siavash Shahshahani]

Many thanks, Baher. And could you provide the definitive reference in the
Guidebook, in case there exist other than the ones I found.
Siavash

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:52:38 -0700, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>
wrote:
> 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