[Latingp] Variants

[Mats Dufberg]

I asked Patrik Fältström from SSAC (since he mentioned the presentation before the Tech Day) and he says that it is a work-in-progress of SSAC that might result in a report in 6-12 months.

He also says that in that work the use that looser definition of homoglyphs. He refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph

The SSAC presentation shows that we should not take the risk of confusion too lightly.

I think this also illustrates that if we use the term "homoglyph" in the strict sense we should also state that in our report.


Mats

---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/


From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 15:54
To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>, ICANN Latin GP <Latingp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variants

Hi Mats,

I did attend the ccNSO session on IDN Homographs. While the presentation was given by SSAC members, the information or analysis were not produced by SSAC. They used an “off-the-shelf” third-party’s data, so I would take the information with a bit grain of salt. I did not find a SSAC report.

I found their definitions of homoglyph and homograph a bit loose. The dictionary defines homograph as “one of two or more words spelled alike but different in meaning or derivation or pronunciation (such as bow of a ship, a bow and arrow)”.

As far as “very similar”, I read this as “nearly identical due to font design”. The example they use (a and ã) would not fall in the very similar, but distinguishable category, in my opinion.

-Dennis



From: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:34 AM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, "Latingp at icann.org" <Latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variants

Dennis,

Thank you for adding those bullets. At the first glance I read them as ANDs but of course they should be read as ORs.

Speaking of homoglyphs, SSAC had a presentation at the ccNSO Tech Day Monday. I did not attend since it collided with some IDN meeting, but I have looked at the presentation.

In the presentation they have one slide on homoglyphs and homographs. From the slide 10:

◉ Homoglyph One of two or more glyphs with shapes that appear identical or very similar

     a ã

https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191691/1540208800.pdf?1540208800

Please note "appear identical", not "are identical". And also "very similar". The message here is quite different from the first message from IP.

Please view the presentation and especially slide 17.

I have not looked for an equivalent SSAC report.


Mats

---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/


From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 19:56
To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>, ICANN Latin GP <Latingp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variants

Mats, thanks for the summary. I believe it’s an accurate account of our action items.

On #4 there’s some additional nuance. In regards, similarity vs variant, they pointed out to limit considerations of appearance to cases that:

-            are unambiguous

-            have overriding security concerns

-            exhibit true exchangeability (homoglyph)

They also mentioned that when looking at similarity cases we should look at those through the lenses of a “careful and observant user”.

-Dennis

From: Latingp <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 12:48 PM
To: ICANN Latin GP <Latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Variants

Friends,

During the ICANN63 we had one specific session between Latin GP and IP, but there have more IDN sessions where comments relevant to our work has come up.


1. IP wants us to create cross-script variants with all code points in different scripts that has identical or visually similar to LATIN SMALL LETTER O. IP gave the following list in their presentation today:

  Code  Glyph Name
  006F  o     LATIN SMALL LETTER O
  03BF  ο     GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON
  043E  о     CYRILLIC SMALLER LETTER O
  0585  օ     ARMENIAN SMALL LETTER OH
  0B20  ଠ     ORIYA LETTER TTHA
  0D20  ഠ     MALAYALAM LETTER TTHA
  101D  ဝ     MYANMAR LETTER WA

IP that a GP has the responsibility to look at other GP's proposals, both completed and work-in-progress, for obvious cases of visual similarity.


2. Besides the "ring" above, they want us to look for the straight line, i.e. l like.


3. IP suggests that we include cases of visually similarity that we have decided to reject in an appendix of two reasons:

Firstly to show the reader that we have considered the case, but decided not to included it as variant. In that way we might get less questions during public comment if the we have looked at certain pair.

Secondly to give data for others, such as for a 2nd level IDN table creation.

I know that we have decided to do it, but I just want to emphasize that it came up.


4. I feel that there is more understanding on creating variants on visual similarity rather than strict homoglyphs. Other GP propose such in-script variants.



Mats

---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20181029/64cf9faf/attachment-0001.html>