[idn] Arabic hyphen-like glyph

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

Arabic glyph U+0640 (Arabic TATWEEL) looks like Latin hyphen(-).

Arabic FULLSTOP U+06D4  looks like Latin 'underline' (or 'hyphen' ).

Using hyphen instead of punctuation char NWNJ(U+200C,No-width No joiner)
 may not help but cause confusion to native-Arabic people.


Soobok Lee, lsb@postel.co.kr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
To: "Roozbeh Pournader" <roozbeh@sharif.edu>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>; "Dan Oscarsson" <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>;
<idn@ops.ietf.org>; <idn-nameprep@viagenie.qc.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: [idn] ZWNJ (was: Re: Just send UTF-8 with nameprep (was: RE:
[idn]Reality Check))


> At 19:33 01/07/25 +0430, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Martin Duerst wrote:
> >
> > > I don't want to disagree with your conclusion, but I'm not
> > > sure about the premise (that we need the original spelling),
> > > so I didn't get into the details of what would follow.
> >
> >We may need original spelling, for example if we decide that we need to
> >stop Arabic letters from joining, by using a ZWNJ between them (since a
> >space is not available). Multiword Arabic domain names will be unreadable
> >if the words join. But since ZNWJ is stripped at nameprep, we will
> >sometimes need to get to the original. You get the idea.
>
> Hello Roozbeh,
>
> Many thanks for your comment. As far as I remember, currently ZNWJ is
> dropped by nameprep without complaining. I think that if that leads to
> problems as you describe above, we should very carefully reexamine
> this decision. I have already told the nameprep design team that
> I think that this should be moved to 'disallowed' to avoid surprises
> like the above. But I'm not sure moving it to 'disallowed' would
> solve all problems (assuming that the hyphen is used for concatenating
> words).
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>