[Latingp] Correction: Discussion of the Armenian GP request
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Sep 22 21:03:24 UTC 2015
Thank you for the clarifications, on today's conference call and on the
We have the general question of what, in addition to the base character
set specified in rfc1034/1035, drawing on earlier rfcs,
letters-digits-and-hyphen, is necessary for constructing labels, for
users of latin script.
Our work product will be of the form of some rules for the formation of
identifiers, constrained by the limitations on labels arising from the
IDNA work of 2003 and 2010.
There may be context-specific rules, perhaps for labels which originate,
or terminate, a sequence of labels, e.g., those labels published as part
of the IANA root zone and are composed of characters a single script as
defined in the current version of UNICODE.
What ever those context-specific rules may be, ours is the general
problem of identifiers expressed in the latin script, used to associate
resources at public addresses by the protocol defined in rfc1034/1035
and their successors. If a label is terminal, there may be
My understanding is that our peers in the Armenian GP have informed us
(via the "similar scripts" question in our common boiler-plate initial
document) that there are one or more glyphs common to the Armenian
script which are similar to one or more glyphs common to the Latin
script. In general this is probably not "news", as whatever the final
form of general rules we issue as our work product, our rules are likely
to "be aware" that homoglyphs exist, etc.
On 9/22/15 11:02 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [[ As Eric Brunner-Williams pointed out on our first call, I had a
> pretty serious typo in the message I sent out yesterday. This is the
> corrected version. ]]
> It is not clear to me that the Latin GP should addressing the issues
> that were sent to us by the Armenian GP. Here are a few thoughts on
> the subject.
> 1) The Integration Panel believes that the Armenian script is
> separable from the Latin script, according to Section 3.8.3 of the MSR2.
> 2) Section B.3.4.2 of the LGR Procedures document says "Finally, in
> investigating the possible variant relations, Generation Panels should
> ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of
> visual similarity."
> 3) Even ignoring the previous two points, the request seems to be for
> cross-script variants, such as for an Armenian letter that looks like
> a Latin letter. The "Guidelines for LGR" document indicates that
> cross-script variants might be created, but gives no hints about why
> we should do that given that the root zone will consist of labels of a
> single script (according to Section A.3.1).
> This feels to me like the Armenian GP's submission is not related to
> ours, so we should not be commenting on it.
> --Paul Hoffman
> Latingp mailing list
> Latingp at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Latingp