[arabic-vip] [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report

[Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Baher, Andrew, All,

 

Thanks for your feedback.  We have the following text for ZWNJ in the latest
version of the report on issues:

 

200C (ZWNJ): Even though there may be some policy to restrict the use of
ZWNJ in the TLDs, the committee felt that due to its critical use in Arabic
script to separate ligatures which end with joining letters, there is a need
for ZWNJ by the community for TLDs (even though there may be limited use at
this time).  Zero Width Non Joiner is needed in domain names in Arabic
script to separate multiple words within a label.  

 

Though there is a defined rule which allows ZWNJ only in contexts where its
effect is visible, there are few contexts which ZWNJ may still not have a
visible impact.  This includes characters U+0637, U+0638 and U+069F.  This
is indicated by the two sequences, one with and one without the ZWNJ:  طب
ط‌ب.  The ZWNJ should not be permitted following these three characters, in
addition to the constraint already put on its use by the IDNA 2008 protocol
(see RFC 5893).

 

I have requested Baher for links to the audio recordings to re-check this.
However, other members attending the F2F meeting are also requested to
comment so that we can draft this text to correctly reflect what we
finalized.

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

 

 

From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Baher Esmat
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari
team report

 


On 9/21/11 5:19 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at crankycanuck.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:59:27PM -0700, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
> 
>> 2.       The Arabic Script Community is requesting the use of ZWNJ in
TLDs
> 
> This is something that did not come clear to me in our face to face,
> but I know someone has asked for this on a mailing list.

It was not that clear to me as well. I recall there was a discussion about
this during the f2f meeting but thought that there was no consensus on the
necessity to allow ZWNJ at TLD level, and the conclusion was that the team
would raise this as an issue in their final report. 

Baher

> 
> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I do like 1.6 (I think Andrew emphasized this as "delegation" in our
meeting
>> and it is an important point not very well understood by the community
>> (please correct me if I am wrong here)).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Sarmad
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:vip-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Naela Sarras
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:24 AM
>> To: vip at icann.org
>> Subject: [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> During a meeting of the Devanagari Case Study Team meeting last week, the
>> team adopted a set of overarching principles that they will include in
their
>> Case Study Issues report. We are sharing this section of the report with
the
>> other case study teams in case they find it useful for their respective
>> reports.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Naela Sarras
>> 
>>  
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110921/755bf492/attachment-0001.html