[Latingp] For consideration at LGP first meeting (Agenda point 4)
c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk
Fri Sep 18 08:22:12 UTC 2015
Thank you for your comments.
1) I have asked ICANN staff to contact the IP about a clarification of the sentence.
3) This GP is indeed only for the use of Latin in the root.
The original request for us to comment came from ICANN staff when the Armenian proposal was put up for public comment. Please find it below.
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
From: Sarmad Hussain [mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org]
Sent: 02 September 2015 07:25
To: Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>>; Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>) <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>>
Cc: Alireza Saleh <alireza.saleh at icann.org<mailto:alireza.saleh at icann.org>>
Subject: Request for comments by Latin GP on Root Zone LGR proposal by Armenian GP
Dear Chris and Eric,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Latin scripts, listing the following:
զ U+0566 Armenian small letter ZA q U+0071 Latin small letter Q
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO h U+0068 Latin small letter H
ո U+0578 Armenian small letter VO n U+006E Latin small letter N
ս U+057D Armenian small letter SHE u U+0075 Latin small letter U
ց U+0581 Armenian small letter CO g U+0067 Latin small letter G
ւ U+0582 Armenian small letter YIWN ɩ U+0269 Latin small letter IOTA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH o U+006F Latin small letter O
Notes: The ARMENIAN SMALL LETTER ZA and the LATIN SMALL LETTER Q are not perfect homoglyphs but the difference may not be perceivable at normal size. A label, such as .զսօ would be readily accepted by users as “the same” as the label .quo (in Latin). The ‘g’ homoglyph situation only exists in sans-serif style, which, however, is a very common choice for user interfaces. Armenian YIWN and Latin IOTA are considered homoglyphs as their visual perception is quite similar. 6 The ARMENIAN LETTER YI and j U+006A LATIN SMALL LETTER J are not considered homoglyphs as “dot” changes the visual perception of the letter. That is why this case is not included into the cross-script variants.
We would request the Latin GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Latin GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Latin GP.
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman at icann.org]
Sent: 17 September 2015 16:03
To: Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>; LatinGP at icann.org
Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>; Alireza Saleh <alireza.saleh at icann.org>; Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] For consideration at LGP first meeting (Agenda point 4)
1) "Finally, in investigating the possible variant relations, Generation Panels should ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of visual similarity."
I think this may mean variant code point relations, but certainly needs clarifying.
Will the chairs ask the Integration Panel about that? Or do we as a GP need to formulate that message?
If my understanding is correct it would mean that Latin o and the identical Armenian letter would not be declared universally as variant code points.
Terms like "identical" are tricky. There is a character in the Armenian script called "Armenian small letter oh" that looks like an italicized "Latin small letter o", but according to Dalby's "Dictionary of Languages", it is *not* the equivalent of the Latin small letter o"; instead, the "Armenian small letter vo" (which looks like an italicized superscripted n) is the equivalent of "Latin small letter o".
2) I shall save my comments on this point, as I would not want to influence people in a particular direction.
3) As you write, and also according to B.3.2 in the Procedure to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels, mixed script labels at the Top Level currently seem unlikely. They do exist at lower levels, usually involving the Latin script or Arabic numerals and another script.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this GP was for the use of Latin at the root, and our decisions are supposed to be based on that. If I'm right, then we can use the "single script" rule as a way of making our decisions.
If my understanding is correct, the issue is whole Armenian labels that are visually similar to whole Latin labels.
Sure, that could be. However, given that instruction to "ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of visual similarity", that doesn't seem relevant. Worse, there are numerous scripts that have characters that will look like a vertical line ("Latin small letter l") or a horizontal line ("hyphen minus" and "low line"). I would hope that each GP with such a character is not expected to communicate with every other GP to find if they have such characters.
I think this is why we are being asked to comment.
Can we see the original request from the Armenian GP or from the Integration Panel? It would help us decide how best to respond.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Latingp