[Latingp] [Ext] Re: ACTION NEEDED: For IP: 2018-09-10 version of the Proposal for Latin script LGR

[Pitinan Kooarmornpatana]

Dear Mirjana, 

Thank you for your email. This is well noted. We will forward this version to the IP. 

Regards,
Pitinan

-----Original Message-----
From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs>
Date: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 18:22
To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo at icann.org>, Latin GP <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] ACTION NEEDED: For IP: 2018-09-10 version of the Proposal for Latin script LGR

    Dear Pitinan,
    
    Please find our last version of the report. There were no changes to the Repertoire and Variant tables, only some minor changes in the text.
    
    We shall not make  any more changes to the report, so you can send the whole package to IP.
    
    Thank you very much for your  help.
    
    Regards Mirjana
    
    --------------------------------------------
    
    Dear Michael, Denis 
    
    Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I have accepted almost all your changes and proposals.  I cannot make right decision with Michael's comment on  
    "
        on page 6 we write "Languages are restricted to natural human
        languages", but what about Esperanto? It's not a natural language, is
        it? I think it is a artificial, constructed language. Should we maybe
        remove the word "natural"? Or should we change it to something like:
        "Languages are restricted to natural human languages in active use plus
        the widely used universal language Esperanto.""
    
    I shall leave this for the next version of Report, after discussion with GP members.
    
    We shall finally polish our report during F2F meeting.
    
    Regards Mirjana. 
    
    On 9/13/18, 09:21, "Michael Bauland" <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de> wrote:
    
        Hi,
        
        on page 6 we write "Languages are restricted to natural human
        languages", but what about Esperanto? It's not a natural language, is
        it? I think it is a artificial, constructed language. Should we maybe
        remove the word "natural"? Or should we change it to something like:
        "Languages are restricted to natural human languages in active use plus
        the widely used universal language Esperanto."
        
        We sometimes write MSR-2 and MSR-3, and sometimes MSR2 and MSR3. Not a
        big issue, but we should only use one of them (should be easily fixed by
        the search and replace functionality).
        
        Esperanto has no number in Appendix A. I guess it should be 102 and all
        following languages should be changed to +1.
        
        Some smaller changes I already applied in the attached version:
        p5: I changed the colours to better match the colours of the map
        p6: Some minor edits (added articles; changed definition to defining)
        p36: Added an 's': sequence of code pointS
        
        Cheers,
        
        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