[Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis

Thu Aug 2 17:41:55 UTC 2018

Agreed   3 2 3 Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

      From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>
 To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se> 
Cc: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
 Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 9:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis

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 DufbergDNS Specialist, IISMobile: +46 73 065 3899https://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 04:57To: "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

_______________________________________________
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/20180802/00ee6f3a/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/20180802/00ee6f3a/image001-0001.png>