[Latingp] Draft variants principles document - Dotless I

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

Hi Michael,

Glad you are back.

My remarks were made in the context of the I and dotless I, both of which are Latin. For within script, only exact match cases will be considered (or alternate-use cases). For cross-script, the IP advised that slight font differences may be enough to consider two cross-script code point homoglyphs. This is because font design is more consistent within a script than across other scripts.

-Dennis

On 4/19/18, 8:10 AM, "Michael Bauland" <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de> wrote:

    Hi Mats, hi all,
    
    sorry to drop in so late. I was sick for a week and then there was loads
    of work to catch up with.
    
    On 06.04.2018 11:21, Mats Dufberg wrote:
    > Dennis,
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > I believe that a visual test of running text is relevant for Internet
    > identifiers. Internet identifiers are often found in running text. 
    
    Without looking at the specific example, I agree with Dennis that
    running text should not be relevant. The human mind is trained to look
    at whole words when reading and not looking at every single character.
    There are many tricks you can do with letters/words, while the reader is
    still able to read the sentence without problems, and might not even
    notice there is something "wrong."
    
    However, I disagree with Dennis, when he said:
    
    > this panel has agreed that visual similarity is outside the scope of our work.
    
    As stated in the draft document:
    "A Latin code point will be deemed a variant with a cross-script code
    point when the two code points or sequence of code point are visually
    identical or nearly identical when the difference can be attributed to
    different font styles."
    
    "nearly identical" to me is visual similarity.
    
    But of course, we need to look at all the cases to decide whether
    something is nearly identical or not. For the dotless I I would vote
    they are not nearly identical (otherwise we could also have u and ü
    being nearly identical, and we shouldn't go that way).
    
    Still, the dotless I remains in discussion due to the fact of the
    complexity of up-casing and down-casing, as Mats said.
    
    Best regards,
    
    Michael
    
    -- 
    ____________________________________________________________________
         |       |
         | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
          -------                    Technologiepark
                                     Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                     44227 Dortmund
                                     Germany
    
         Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                     Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
         Dr. Michael Bauland         SIP:    Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
         Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
    
                                     Register Court:
                                     Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
    
                                     Chief Executive Officers:
                                     Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp