[Latingp] For consideration at LGP first meeting (Agenda point 4)

[Meikal Mumin]

Dear all,

on ArabicGP we never considered or even commented on any possible visual
similarity between Arabic script Alif and capital Roman/Latin script i., to
give an (albeit less convincing) example. From what I understand, script
mixing is not permitted at root zone level and in any case Integration
Panel would deal with such cases at Integration - as probably required for
CJK scripts e.g.

Best,

Meikal

2015-09-18 11:22 GMT+03:00 Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>:

> Dear Paul,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Chris.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From:* Sarmad Hussain [mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org
> <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>]
> *Sent:* 02 September 2015 07:25
> *To:* Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>; Eric Brunner-Williams (
> ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net) <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> *Cc:* Alireza Saleh <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.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sarmad
>
>
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Latingp mailing list
> Latingp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20150918/a1797dc3/attachment.html>