[arabic-vip] Final draft of Arabic Case Study Issues Document (combined with definitions)
Raed Al-Fayez
rfayez at citc.gov.sa
Mon Oct 3 05:46:36 UTC 2011
Dear Sarmad,
I really appreciate your response to my comments ☺
I will try to send my opinion soon and comments on the new version soon.
With best regards,
Raed I. Al-Fayez
------------------------------------------
Senior IT Projects Specialist, M.Sc, PMP
Saudi Network Information Center (SaudiNIC)
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)
Tel: + 966-1-2639235 - Fax: + 966-1-2639393
http://www.nic.net.sa<http://www.nic.net.sa/>
From: Sarmad Hussain [mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 11:19 PM
To: Raed Al-Fayez
Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: RE: [arabic-vip] Final draft of Arabic Case Study Issues Document (combined with definitions)
Dear Raed,
Thank you for clarifying these issues further and spending the effort to put in the comments in the latest verions. I have done another pass and here is an initial response to your comments in the document attached. I have also made changes in the latest version accordingly.
Please feel free to respond further after reviewing this and the changes in version 0.7, which I will circulate later today.
Let us keep working to resolve any open items.
Regards,
Sarmad
From: Raed Al-Fayez [mailto:rfayez at citc.gov.sa]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: RE: [arabic-vip] Final draft of Arabic Case Study Issues Document (combined with definitions)
Dear Sarmad,
Here are some of the major points that need to be reflected on the document (or at least discussed):
- Root registry and not TLD registries: The document should emphasize that the recommendation are suitable only for ICANN (as ROOT registry) and can’t be forced to other registries.
- ZWNJ: The recommendation dose not incorporate clearly the possible risks/issues (e.g. reachability, phishing, usability ..etc) and we should not put any solutions till a full comprehensive study is done (the only recommendation should be: do more study in this subject before moving forward with any solution).
- Hyphen: I believe it should be included since it may be used as a word separator for many languages.
- Interchangeable Cases: In section 6 we need to add something related to the ALIF case "In the Arabic language, different shapes of Alif (simple, with hamza above, with hamza below and with madda above) are considered variant of each other and they are used interchangeably".
- Table format (section 7): I think two columns are not enough because some of the relation may reach up to 5+ code points.
- Single policy (section 7): I am against this recommendation " .. this single policy be applicable across all gTLDs and should also be considered for defining labels for ccTLDs" I think each gTLD or ccTLD should have their own way to deal with variants. e.g. A registry may decide to do variants based on the position level. Another registry may do variants up to the character level (general not to the position level).
- Appendices: I request to reconsidering my previous comments on the appendices.
Also here are some of the other important points than need to be considered:
- Root registry and not TLD registries: Remove the parts that are not related to the Root registry; or move them to the appendices.
- ZWNJ: Is not part of the Arabic script it is used by many languages that use the Arabic script and it should be move in a separate section along with ZWJ + EN numbers + Hyphen.
- Fonts: The listed fonts in the document does not list the real fonts that are used in the OS and it may be a misleading information
- Combining Marks: Put the recommendation at the end of section 5 not within the code points area + also combine "064B-0659" and "065A-065F" into one group "064B- 065F".
- Combining Marks: Remove the optional category in section 6 because we already recommended not to allow them in TLDs.
- Label Generation Policy (known as the foo table): The name is not clear and I suggest to stick to the well-known term “table” and we can add to the table whatever we need even rules or policies (I suggest using “master language table” or simply “script table”).
BTW I am attaching my comments on the last version of the document.
With best regards,
Raed I. Al-Fayez
------------------------------------------
Senior IT Projects Specialist, M.Sc, PMP
Saudi Network Information Center (SaudiNIC)
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)
Tel: + 966-1-2639235 - Fax: + 966-1-2639393
http://www.nic.net.sa<http://www.nic.net.sa/>
With best regards,
Raed I. Al-Fayez
------------------------------------------
Senior IT Projects Specialist, M.Sc, PMP
Saudi Network Information Center (SaudiNIC)
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)
Tel: + 966-1-2639235 - Fax: + 966-1-2639393
http://www.nic.net.sa<http://www.nic.net.sa/>
From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk [mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk] On Behalf Of Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Raed Al-Fayez
Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] Final draft of Arabic Case Study Issues Document (combined with definitions)
Dear Raed and All,
We can certainly plan a conference call. To facilitate the call, I would suggest the following:
1. all of us take some time to develop a list the salient issues they feel remain un-addressed in the current report and circulate via email to this group
2. Baher is requested to compile the list from all and circulate a combined list of issues
3. We schedule a call to discuss them; based on the list of items to be discussed, the duration of the call can be set (to more than an hour, if needed)
4. We agree on the final decisions against the items and document to generate the final report; where there is no agreement, we document both sides of argument and leave it there (as we did for ZWNJ). However, it is better to document more (vs. less) given a choice, to capture the knowledge for future discussions.
Baher is requested to consult with the VIP team and set the deadlines for 1-4 above.
regards,
Sarmad
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Raed Al-Fayez <rfayez at citc.gov.sa<mailto:rfayez at citc.gov.sa>> wrote:
Dear Sarmad,
Thanks for your response ..
The mechanism for incorporating or eliminating suggestion and comments are not based on a well-defended (from my point of view I consider it as a biased mechanism).
For example: when I send an email regarding "Preliminary list for technical issues that a registry should consider" that the team asked me to do (see my email on Sun 17/7/2011 10:44 AM with the subject "Variants implications on registry operations and DNSSEC") many items was deleted (in the phone conference and the face-to-face meeting) because they were not related to the root registry; Personally I was more than happy with this decision because it make sense and the initial request was general for all registries; However when I put the same comments on many parts of the document it was ignored?! [BTW this is just an example and I have more].
Anyway I also agree with you that we should have a conference call to discuss the remaining items.
With best regards,
Raed I. Al-Fayez
------------------------------------------
Senior IT Projects Specialist, M.Sc, PMP
Saudi Network Information Center (SaudiNIC)
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)
Tel: + 966-1-2639235<tel:%2B%20966-1-2639235> - Fax: + 966-1-2639393<tel:%2B%20966-1-2639393>
http://www.nic.net.sa<http://www.nic.net.sa/>
From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk<mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> [mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk<mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk>] On Behalf Of Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Raed Al-Fayez
Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org<mailto:arabic-vip at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] Final draft of Arabic Case Study Issues Document (combined with definitions)
Dear Raed,
I am still wondering why many of my comments was not taken into account when you revised the document!
I have spent lots of effort and time in revising the document and I believe my comments should be at least discussed or clarified before discarding them.
As I wrote earlier, it is not possible to accommodate all comments by everybody (as in some cases they may be conflicting; in which case I have tried to capture what the general consensus seems to be; though I can certainly confirm that I have gone through all the comments from everybody carefully in the process). I am certainly not the final person to make the final call and that is why I have requested to kindly raise in email or document the points which you feel are essential and still not addressed and we can discuss them explicitly. And if there is need, we can do a conference call.
BTW I have reordered the table rows in the appendixes based on the code point number, and change the naming of many code points to be aligned with the Unicode naming, also I have converted many images to tables to make all the tables in the same format, and added some extra code points that was not covered and I am disappointed when all that effort was ignored!
Don't be disappointed :-) These are formatting issues and as per our arrangement these are left to Mohammed and his team to address in the final formatting of the document. They will also make the spellings consistent with Unicode, etc. I have not addressed any significant formatting issues in my re-writing, where my focus has been on re-writing the content. Of course Mohammed is requested to accommodate this. If there are missing content issues, please also point that out and we can adjust.
With best regards,
Raed I. Al-Fayez
regards,
Sarmad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20111003/6dfc23a3/attachment-0001.html
More information about the arabic-vip
mailing list