[arabic-vip] Issues Document

[Siavash Shahshahani]

Dear Sarmad,
Here is my suggestion: Instead of 
--------------------------------------------------
i.	Should a character set identify the set of language(s) it supports? 
This could be a single language, multiple languages or the entire script. 
Though need to identify a language is not necessary for labels, it does
promote more consistent re-use of tables, for example,  as has been
encouraged by the ICANN’s Fast Track process.
------------------------------------------------------------
split this into two, both posed as questions, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------
i.	Should a character set identify the set of language(s) it supports? 
This could be a single language, multiple languages or the entire script.
ii.      What are the issues, advantages and disadvantages of identifying
languages purportedly supported by the registry's character table?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And then re-number the rest of items in this paragraph.
Best
Siavash


On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:21:27 -0700, "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net>
wrote:
> Dear Siavash,
> 
> I certainly understand and support the point of view that we need to
start
> getting away from a very language-centric terminology and argumentation,
> especially in the case of gTLDs.  However, where TLDs are languages
> dependent (e.g. in ccTLDs in some cases and also perhaps for some gTLD
> applications (we do not know yet)), there are advantages of identifying
a
> language table, e.g. re-use, as has been done by ICANN in the Fast Track
> process.  That is what I have tried to capture.
> 
> BTW, I would think that language specific tables would be more
innovative
> (because they would be technologically more challenging to implement)
vs.
> script specific tables, latter being a simpler subset of the former in
> terms
> of rules/constraints.
> 
> However, if you think the sentiments are not appropriately captured,
could
> I
> request you to suggest a revision in the text.
> 
> regards,
> Sarmad
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Siavash Shahshahani
> <shahshah at irnic.ir>wrote:
> 
>> Dear Sarmad,
>> I looked very briefly at the newly-edited document; thank you for the
>> detailed work. Specifically, the part I had ben discussing looks much
>> better from my viewpoint. As long as we phrase matters in question
form,
>> there is generally no harm or bias. There was one non-interrogative
>> statement which I quote:
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> i.      Though need to identify a language is not necessary for labels,
>> it
>> does
>> promote more consistent re-use of tables, for example,  as has been
>> encouraged by the ICANN’s Fast Track process.
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I don't want to get into a discussion at this stage (I can point out
>> disadvantages of language identification as well), but please note that
>> fast-track had its own specific requirements and limitations, one of
>> which
>> was single script per official language. That's how 'language' crept
in.
>> My
>> general fear about such statements is that the simple existence of some
>> difficulties will encourage very conservative attitudes that could
impede
>> innovation and creative problem-solving in IDN sphere. A simple test
>> would
>> be to ask the same questions about ASCII. Except for specific
DNS-related
>> matters carried out in ASCII, there should be no difference of
attitude.
>> Regards,
>> Siavash
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 23:44:11 -0700, "Sarmad Hussain"
>> <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> wrote:
>> > Agree that "language" table is a misnomer.  Not sure what to call it,
>> > perhaps a "registry supported character set and variant table"?
>> >
>> > I am rewording this in the revised version 0.4 (will circulate it
>> > tonight).  Please check the text and make sure it meets your
>> expectations.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Sarmad
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir]
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:58 AM
>> > To: Sarmad Hussain
>> > Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
>> > Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] Issues Document
>> >
>> > Dear Sarmad,
>> > Thank you for the great combining work, well done. I wish to point
out
>> > something about the following:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > a.    Management of Language and Variant Tables
>> >
>> > The registry should decide what are the supported languages along
with
>> > defining language table and variants table for each supported
language.
>> > Here are some questions (about this issue) that each registry should
>> > consider:
>> >
>> > i.    What are the supported languages in the registry's TLD?
>> > ..... etc
>> >
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > I have trouble with the 'should' in the introduction. Why should it?
If
>> > you are registering an ASCII domain you are not required to discuss
the
>> > language. Language is taken care of by the requirements of
>> > registration;
>> no
>> > further limitations are needed. This will be very important by gTLDs.
>> Note
>> > that a label need not be carry a meaning in any language. The only
>> sensible
>> > requirement for the gTLD would be that its rules and regulations take
>> care
>> > of variants in a way that no threat to security and stability would
>> ensue.
>> > There is no universal solution for this; the solution would depend on
>> the
>> > character table used by the regisry. In the case of Arabic script,
>> > depending on which subset of the UNICODE table you are allowing for
>> > registration, your requirements will differ; no reference to
'language'
>> is
>> > needed.
>> > Regards,
>> > Siavash
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:32:08 -0700, "Sarmad Hussain"
>> > <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> wrote:
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for the feedback so far.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have incorporated comments from Fahd, Dr. Al-Zoman and also
included
>> >> change due to our final discussions on dispute resolution, and end
>> user.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please find attached an updated version for your review and further
>> >> feedback.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I wish all of you a happy Eid and we will have our conference call
on
>> >> Tuesday, 6th Sept.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Sarmad
>>