[Latingp] Latin-Armenian cross-script variant analysis

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

Dear Igor,

Thank you for your prompt response.

I hope this email gets delivered with the images as it is better that way to convey what we are trying to achieve.

Let’s use Armenian Small Letter HO (U+570) as an example. Below, you should see the three visual representations from 1) compart.com<https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+0570> (the URL you recommended), 2) Unicode<https://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=570&B1=Show> and 3) The Armenian LGR proposal.

[cid:image001.png at 01D37588.4A7DD940]  [cid:image002.png at 01D37588.4A7DD940]   [cid:image003.png at 01D37588.4A7DD940]

Observations:

  *   The visual representations (i.e. type face) from compart.com and Unicode match, but the representation in the Armenian LGR proposal is different.
  *   The Armenian LGR proposes Latin Small Letter H as variant of Armenian Small Letter HO because they were found to be homoglyphs per the panel.
  *   The Latin GP wishes to learn what are the common type faces used in internet applications, such as browsers in order to do our variant analysis.
  *   Question: is the following premise true? The type face used by compart.com or Unicode (shown above) is not representative of current use by internet applications.
  *   Question: which type face(s) does the Armenian GP used in your LGR document as seen above? And, is the type face used in Armenian LGR proposal representative of current use by internet applications?

I hope this is helpful. Alternatively, I can jump into a quick call to explain all this.

Thank you.

Best,
Dennis

From: Igor Mkrtumyan <imkrtumyan at isoc.am>
Reply-To: "imkrtumyan at isoc.am" <imkrtumyan at isoc.am>
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:53 AM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, "ArmenianGP at icann.org" <ArmenianGP at icann.org>
Cc: "'Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp'" <latingp at icann.org>, 'Pitinan Kooarmornpatana' <pitinan.koo at icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Latin-Armenian cross-script variant analysis

Dear Dennis,
We are very glad to receive a letter from you and the Latin GP. It signifies that we can finalize soon our Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR.
The most commonly used Armenian type face (based on current use on Internet applications, such as websites and browsers) can be seen here https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/scripts/Armn . It differs slightly from the Unicode default. However we are ready to discuss your objections and come to an agreement. What code point seems doubtful to you to be considered as a homoglyph?
Thank you and best regards
Igor Mkrtumyan
Armenian GP

From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka at verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:23 AM
To: imkrtumyan at isoc.am; ArmenianGP at icann.org
Cc: Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Sarmad Hussain
Subject: Latin-Armenian cross-script variant analysis

Dear Armenian GP,

The Latin GP is initiating work on Latin/Armenian cross-script variant analysis. To this end, we want to use the Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR, version 7 of 2015-11-05 as a reference.

In your proposal, there are seven cross-script Latin/Armenian variant sets. However, we cannot replicate your results for the exception of one code point. The reason for this is the choice of type face. Our wg cannot find the type face the Armenian GP used to do the visual comparison. We kindly ask your help in understanding the following:
·         What is the type face (i.e. font) that the Armenian GP used in their analysis?
·         Was the decision of using a different type face different that the Unicode’s default (i.e. type face used in Unicode code charts) based on current use on Internet applications, such as websites and browsers? Please elaborate to the extent possible.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer this email.

Sincerely,
Latin GP, variant group

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20171215/18efc24f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10910 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20171215/18efc24f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9574 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20171215/18efc24f/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7678 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20171215/18efc24f/image003-0001.png>