[arabic-vip] review of comments to Arabic team report

[Baher Esmat]

Team: 

Attached is your latest summary that I'm sending out for posting.

Best,
Baher


On 11/30/11 8:56 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Baher & Sarmad ..
> I'm fine with this version ..
> There is just one typo in the second word 'raises' of the last para ..
>  
> Kind Reagrds
>  
> --Manal
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Sarmad Hussain
> Sent: Wed 30/11/2011 04:04 AM
> To: arabic-vip at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] review of comments to Arabic team report
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Here is another version, with comments from Dr. Al-Zoman and follow up
> suggestions from Behnam integrated.
> 
> We have missed the deadline, but it is important that we get this right.
> 
> Please take a look at it.  If you have any further comments, please let us
> know.  Otherwise, I would request Baher to clean and post this later today.
> 
> Regards,
> Sarmad
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-
>>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:56 PM
>>> To: baher.esmat; Abdulaziz Zoman; Behnam Esfahbod
>>> Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] review of comments to Arabic team report
>>> 
>>> Baher, I tried to re-draft this part ..
>>> I think splitting this part into 2 paras would address a great deal of
>>> my concerns ..
>>> Hope the attached makes sense and can be agreed upon by other
>>> colleagues ..
>>> 
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> 
>>> From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org on behalf of baher.esmat
>>> Sent: Tue 29/11/2011 06:53 PM
>>> To: Abdulaziz Zoman; Behnam Esfahbod
>>> Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] review of comments to Arabic team report
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Team:
>>> 
>>> I'm still not clear if you want to include more text about ZWNJ in your
>>> response to public comments.
>>> 
>>> Also, there are a couple of comments by Manal, which I have not heard
>>> any reaction to.
>>> 
>>> Please see attached and advise. We've already passed the deadline.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Baher
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/29/11 7:59 AM, "Abdulaziz Zoman" <azoman at citc.gov.sa> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Fare enough ... thanks Behnam.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      -----------------------------
>>>      ????????? ?? ??? ???????
>>>      Abdulaziz H. Al-Zoman
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      From: behnam at gmail.com [mailto:behnam at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Behnam Esfahbod
>>>      Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:36 AM
>>>      To: Abdulaziz Al-Zoman
>>>      Cc: Siavash Shahshahani; arabic-vip at icann.org
>>>      Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] review of comments to Arabic team
>>> report
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Hi,
>>> 
>>>      2011/11/29 Abdulaziz Al-Zoman <azoman at citc.gov.sa>
>>>      The (original) statement on the report does not reflect the team
>>> viewpoint:
>>> 
>>>            "ZWNJ is already a CONTEXT character with rules identified
>>> (though they need to be extended as proposed)."
>>>      This statements may leads to the fact that the CONTEXT rules is
>>> resolving all the issues and concerns regarding the use of ZWNJ. Which
>>> is not.
>>>      So, I added the following statement which is in line with the
>>> team's recommendations (hence, I did not list the cons or pros):
>>>             "ZWNJ raises a number of problems to be addressed and
>>> resolved before it can be adapted at the TLDs."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      That part of the statement only refers to a specific part of the
>>> comment by John Klensin (page 7, paragraph 3) where he discusses the
>>> Unicode-level problem with defining a "script" and listing the
>>> characters in a script.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Thus, I think the problem is that the statement is not clear
>>> enough. I suggestion adding a sentence saying that this part "is
>>> talking about the using Unicode characters' properties to define the
>>> scripts, and DOES NOT concert security and/or usability issues".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Also, "CONTEXT" is technically not defined anywhere in the
>>> documents, so we should either use "Contextual Rules" or "CONTEXTJ"
>>> (both from RFC 5891) to be more specific.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Thanks,
>>> 
>>>      -Behnam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of Comments for Arabic script VIP-Clean.docx
Type: application/msword
Size: 15633 bytes
Desc: Summary of Comments for Arabic script VIP-Clean.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20111130/c72deb5b/SummaryofCommentsforArabicscriptVIP-Clean.docx