[Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis

[Meikal Mumin]

I agree. We should add a variant set for these and my vote would be 3 2 3

On 30 July 2018 at 12:45, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se> wrote:

> I looked at the material and then I wondered why U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL
> LETTER DZHE is matched to U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT
> BELOW and not to U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW (which is also
> in our repertoire). I think that U+045F and U+1EE5 are more similar than
> U+045F and U+1EF1.
>
>
>
> First displayed as text in the mail:
>
>
>
>                              1EF1  045F  1EE5
>
> Times:                   ự        џ        ụ
>
>
>
> Helvetica:             ự       џ        ụ
>
>
>
> Courier new: ự   џ   ụ
>
>
>
>
>
> Here as a picture:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Mats
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Mats Dufberg
>
> DNS Specialist, IIS
>
> Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
>
> https://www.iis.se/en/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Latingp <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <
> latingp at icann.org>
>
> Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
>
> Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 04:57
>
> To: "Michael.Bauland at knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>, ICANN Latin GP
> <latingp at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis
>
>
>
>     Latin GP,
>
>
>
>     Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending
> cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or
> <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as
> well.
>
>
>
>     Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may
> have.
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Dennis
>
>
>
>     On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <
> latingp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland at knipp.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Hi all,
>
>
>
>         On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote:
>
>         > I have reviewed these.  In several cases, I believe it is
> possible to
>
>         > resolve the issue using the same principle:
>
>         > When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked
> font,
>
>         > and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason
> to look
>
>         > further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and
> move on.
>
>
>
>         I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to
> find
>
>         more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases).
> Therefore it
>
>         makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked
> font. In
>
>         case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>         > I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a
> rating
>
>         > of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had
> something
>
>         > else.  Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the
>
>         > candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial
> inspection.  Even
>
>         > if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least
> give us
>
>         > someplace to start discussion.
>
>
>
>         Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating
>
>         referring to the newly found candidate.
>
>
>
>         Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second
>
>         inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not
> work). If
>
>         the others could do the same, we could probably apply some
> majority vote.
>
>
>
>         Have a nice weekend
>
>
>
>         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
>
>        _______________________________________________
>
>         Latingp mailing list
>
>         Latingp at icann.org
>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Latingp mailing list
>
>     Latingp at icann.org
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180802/2a1ba0ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13236 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20180802/2a1ba0ab/image001-0001.png>