[arabic-vip] ZWNJ (earlier: [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report)

[Behnam Esfahbod]

Dear Andrew,

I understand what you are saying, and being a technical person myself,
I completely agree that evolution in the protocols and standards is
much better  that sudden big changes. But the main point remains,
which is what should be included in the first step and what is not
necessary. All I have been trying to say in the few months is that
ZWNJ is "necessary" for Persian language.

For example, Harkats (the combining mark characters) are optional in
Persian language, i.e. that they are used in hand-written documents
very rarely. We know that some day some organization may prefer to
have them in their TLD, but that would be a "rare" case. The case of
ZWNJ is nothing like this.

-Behnam


On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:43:09AM -0400, Behnam Esfahbod wrote:
>>
>> So, the question would be are we in a place to prevent all of these
>> names from being a TLD in the future?
>
> I think it is extremely important to note that the policies being
> adopted are not necessarily permanent policies for all time.  Zone
> operation policy can change over time.  Indeed, if it couldn't, no IDN
> could be accepted into the root zone, because if one reads RFC 1123
> section 2.1 as being a statement of policy, that policy still says "no
> IDNA labels in the root".  Clearly, that is changing.
>
> As I guess I've argued repeatedly, recently, it is better for the root
> if we start with more restrictive rules first, with a plan to
> understand the implications of widening those rules before we do so.
> (I'd argue this is a good rule for every zone, but especially good in
> the case of the root, since everyone needs to share that resource.)
> Note that this necessarily entails that some words in some languages,
> and some otherwise desirable labels, are all prevented from
> registration (or, for that matter, are prevented from registration
> when some other registration happens).  In my opinion, this is a
> feature and not a bug: the wider the scope of sudden expansion of the
> root, the wider the scope for surprises and problems.  Prudence
> suggests that a slow evolution of the rules is safer.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>



-- 
    '     بهنام اسفهبد
    '     Behnam Esfahbod
   '      http://behnam.esfahbod.info
  *  ..   http://zwnj.org/
 *  `  *  http://persian-computing.ir
  * o *   3E7F B4B6 6F4C A8AB 9BB9 7520 5701 CA40 259E 0F8B