[Latingp] Variants for LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW and friends

Fri Aug 3 08:55:45 UTC 2018

On the conference call last night I was asked to create one email on LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW and friends.

In this email three code points are considered:

  *   U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE
  *   U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT BELOW
  *   U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW

1. In the Latin-Cyrillic variant material, a comparison is done between U+045F and U+1EF1. As I have noted U+1EE5 is even closer to U+045F, but no comparison has been done between U+045F and U+1EE5, which I now propose should be done.

2. If the workgroup decides that both comparisons should result in between-script variant pairs, then as a consequence U+1EE5 and U+1EF1 must constitute a within-script variant pair.

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:

[cid:image001.png at 01D42803.2604AAC0]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20180803/d13d3b63/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13237 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20180803/d13d3b63/image001-0001.png>